The brothers celebrated. Daniel Sledden, 27, went to Facebook and posted: "Cannot believe my luck 2 year suspended sentence beats the 3 year jail yes pal!" Then he added an anything-but-subtle remark about what Lunt could do with his anatomy.
This seemed unwise. It also seemed somewhat pointless. Here was someone who couldn't believe his luck choosing to mock the very person who'd handed it to him.
And here, too, was someone who would be called back into court for resentencing.
The judge, you see, had been shown Daniel Sledden's post, along with his brother's reply (which included a slightly different, but no less anatomical, remark).
"The question I have to ask myself is this: If I had known their real feelings at being in court, would I have accepted their remorse and contrition, and suspended the sentence?" she said.
Her answer? "Of course not."
The judge was clearly au fait with Facebook's privacy controls.
She said: "These were not private entries in a diary. They were placed on Facebook with the intention that others should and would read them and, if they wished, would share them. So it was a limitless audience."
She called the posts "boastful and jeering."
Judge Lunt's conclusion was that "the only reasonable inference was they thought they had somehow fooled and misled the court."
You can feel what happened next, can't you? The judge decided to unsuspend the prison sentences. Both men must now serve two years.