Whether one agrees or not that these minimum sentences are too harsh, I think the courts have been looking through the wrong end of the telescope, have misunderstood Parliament and have seriously overstepped their boundaries.

Consider this: it isn't that Parliament inadvertently caught up a so-called less serious offence in the minimum that was actually intended for more serious offences.  What Parliament in fact said is that the least serious of these offences deserves the prescribed minimum sentence.

Parliament decides these matters and enacts the laws.  Courts apply the laws as enacted.  Just because a prescribed penalty is harsh does not make it unlawful.  In the present instance Parliament intended harsh.