It is easy to cherry pick "evidence" to support an argument. What you posted were 2 cases out of hundreds of thousands each year, that are assessed in an overworked and under resourced Legal system. There will always be anomalies, or even just sentences that you or I disagree with, when sentencing is based on the personal assessment of a Judge or Magistrate, working to politically created " Guidelines", and taking account of evidence and testimony that we are not party to.
If you want consistency in sentencing then you would either have to take the human element out of the decision making process, or mandate specific fixed outcomes for every offence.
EDIT: Out of curiosity, what sort of "evidence" would you expect somebody to produce to support a counter to your argument over inconsistent sentencing ?