AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 23 August 2013

R v Steve VENIOS

[2013] NSWDC 182

Assault & violenceTheft & property
CRIME SENTENCE ROBBERY IN COMPANY

Citation: R v Steve Venios [2013] NSWDC 182
Court: NSW District Court
Date: 23 August 2013
Judge(s): Berman SC DCJ

Background

The offender had pleaded guilty to robbery in company, a serious offence. The matter had come before his Honour on multiple occasions, with earlier proceedings addressing both the gravity of the offending and the offender's significant progress toward rehabilitation.

At the previous listing, the court had received a report assessing the offender as unsuitable for an intensive corrections order (ICO). The matter was adjourned so that the issues blocking suitability could be resolved. By the time of this sentencing, an updated ICO assessment confirmed suitability.

The offender had previously served a period of custody and had, since that time, demonstrated substantial rehabilitation. The court had before it material from a treating doctor (Dr Jonathon Mack) and other reports bearing on the offender's circumstances.

  • Whether an intensive corrections order, rather than full-time imprisonment, was an appropriate sentence for a serious offence of robbery in company.
  • Whether the offender's demonstrated rehabilitation justified departing from a sentence primarily oriented toward deterrence.
  • What conditions should attach to the ICO to address identified risk factors, including gambling and drug and alcohol issues.

Decision

His Honour opened his remarks by articulating the fundamental purpose of sentencing: to protect society and promote community welfare by reducing crime. Ordinarily, this goal is pursued through sentences designed to deter both the individual offender and others. However, the court was explicit that deterrence is not the only mechanism by which sentencing can serve the public interest.

The court found that, in appropriate cases, a sentence focused on rehabilitation can do more to protect the community than one designed primarily as a deterrent. His Honour acknowledged that an ICO carries a punitive element but is plainly less harsh than full-time custody. He was careful to note that imposing an ICO for a serious offence of this kind required solid evidence that doing so genuinely advanced community welfare.

Berman SC DCJ was satisfied that returning the offender to full-time custody risked undoing the rehabilitation already achieved, which in turn would raise the risk of further offending after release. On that basis, the court concluded that an ICO best served the community's interests in this case. His Honour also made clear to the offender that non-compliance with the ICO would likely result in a term of full-time imprisonment.

Orders Made

  • The offender was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order commencing 2 September 2013.
  • The ICO was subject to the mandatory conditions prescribed by clause 175 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008.
  • Additional conditions imposed:
  • The offender must maintain contact with Dr Jonathon Mack and accept any referral to a psychologist for ongoing counselling.
  • The offender must undergo gambling assessment and counselling as directed by the Probation and Parole authorities.
  • The offender must undertake any drug and alcohol programs ordered by the Probation and Parole Service.
  • Exhibit 4 was not to be disclosed to the offender but was to be provided to the Newtown Community Corrections Office to facilitate arrangements for the community service component of the ICO.

Key Takeaways

  • The District Court confirmed that the fundamental purpose of sentencing is protection of the public, and that this purpose can, in appropriate circumstances, be better served by a rehabilitation-focused sentence than by a deterrence-focused one.
  • A sentence of imprisonment served by way of an ICO for a serious offence such as robbery in company requires cogent evidence that the outcome genuinely promotes community welfare rather than simply benefiting the offender.
  • Where full-time custody risks reversing demonstrated rehabilitation progress, a sentencing court may find that the consequent increased risk of reoffending upon release weighs against imprisonment.
  • Suitability for an ICO under the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 is a threshold requirement; the court here was only able to proceed once the obstacles to suitability had been resolved and a positive assessment obtained.
  • Tailored conditions addressing specific identified risk factors (in this case, gambling, psychological wellbeing, and drug and alcohol use) formed a central part of the ICO regime imposed.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008 (NSW), cl 175

Cases cited: None cited in the judgment text.