District Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Russo [2013] NSWDC 47 Hearing dates: 1st March 2013 Decision date: 01 March 2013 Before: Berman SC DCJ Decision: Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of an overall non-parole period of 15 months and an overall head sentence of 30 months. The offender is to be released at the end of the non-parole period
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Form 1 - Corruptly giving a benefit to an agent - Performance enchancing substanes - Trotting industry Cases Cited: Regina v Potter [2005] NSWCCA 26 Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Michael Andrew RussoRepresentation: Director of Public Prosecutions
Bunton Law - Offender
File Number(s): 2011/381756
SENTENCE
HIS HONOUR: Many people enjoy betting. Many people enjoy betting on horse races. A lot of people do not, but those that do are entitled to have things as fair as possible. They are entitled to have horses run on their merits and they are entitled to have the authorities act properly in ensuring that that is the case. What the offender, Michael Russo, did was, on eleven occasions, act corruptly by giving or offering a benefit to a steward in the harness racing authority, so that horses with which he, Mr Russo, was involved with would not be tested by the stewards. He did this because he knew that if such testing was undertaken it would reveal matters of concern, usually that the horses had been given something to enhance their performance. This is corruption in a pastime which is important to many people. It is corruption which must be dealt with severely when it is detected. The Court of Criminal Appeal in a decision called Regina v Potter [2005] NSWCCA 26 demonstrated just how serious corruption, including of stewards, in the racing industry is.
The offender has pleaded guilty to nine counts of corruptly giving a benefit to an agent and asks that when I sentence him for the first of those matters, I take into account two other counts of corruptly offering to give a benefit to an agent on a Form 1. He pleaded guilty to those matters at the first opportunity and so the sentences I will impose upon him are twenty-five per cent less than they would otherwise have been.
The corrupt activity extended over a significant period. It began sometime in early 2010. Quite who approached whom I am unable to determine, but in February 2010 the first of a series of transactions took place. Mr Russo contacted a steward by the name of Matthew Bentley, a corrupt steward who, somewhat amazingly, has been granted an immunity from prosecution so he may never face punishment for his involvement in what I am about to describe.
The purpose of Mr Russo contacting Mr Bentley was to confirm that Mr Bentley would be the steward working at a particular harness racing meet on 22 February 2010. The two men worked out that Mr Bentley would be there that day and Mr…
Continue reading R v Russo
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Russo [2013] NSWDC 47
- Case
- [2013] NSWDC 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the severity of the sentence, taking into account the impact of the offence on the integrity of the trotting industry and the specific role of the defendant in administering the banned substance. The considerations also included the defendant's criminal history, remorse, and the potential deterrence of such activities in the future. The court needed to balance the need for punishment with the aim of rehabilitation, and also weigh the public interest in maintaining the ethical standards of the trotting industry.
Upon careful deliberation, the court found that the offence warranted a significant punishment. The court imposed a sentence that included a non-parole period of 15 months and an overall head sentence of 30 months. This decision reflected the serious nature of the crime and the need to uphold the integrity of the industry. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with the possibility of release at the end of the non-parole period, subject to parole board approval.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to imprisonment consisting of an overall non-parole period of 15 months and an overall head sentence of 30 months. The offender is to be released at the end of the non-parole period
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.