i think the only outrage there should be. is that she is not poor. if starving she could sell valuables(ebay still works in lockdown). if she was starving she could show proof of $0 bank balance and foodbank deliveries. which would have helped her case.
yet.. she actually recently just received government grants.
even shelley whos a business owner could receive some funds, which she received recently
which are supposed to be used for businesses to stay closed. thus it can lead to a fraud case later too because she claimed government money she didnt deserve.. in short she cant have it both ways claim stay at home money but not stay at home

i have seen cases where shoplifter who has a large LCD screen and gold necklaces get jailtime. but another shoplifter who was using the foodbank but told only allowed 3 parcels in a season so could no longer get foodbank parcels, had no bank balance and no valuables at home. was let off.
..
however with that said. when it comes to 'constitutional' debates. the solution is very simple. instead of making it criminal(jailtime) make it civil(a large fine) that way there is no constitutional right breach
for taking someone to court for a civil issue.

which was the case. she was fined for the civil disorder(having store open).. and jailed only for contempt of court(not apologising/disregarding the judges orders)

..
but anyway if she cared about her kids the question is. who the hell was looking after the kids while she was working/in jail. i guess she didnt care much about the kids and cared more about profiting from this whole saga