R v Steve Venios

[2013] NSWDC 182

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Steve VENIOS [2013] NSWDC 182
Hearing dates:	23 August 2013
Decision date:	23 August 2013
Before:	Berman SC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to an Intensive Correction Order for 2 years.
Catchwords:	CRIME - Sentence - robbery in company - fundamental purpose of sentencing is to protect the public - where appropriate emphasis can be on rehabilitation.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2008
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Steve Venios The Crown
Representation:	Ms S Goodwin (Defence) Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharah Associates (Defence)
File Number(s):	2011/361566

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: When Mr Steve Venios was before me on the last occasion a report was tendered indicating his unsuitability for an intensive corrections order. Ms Goodwin asked that I adjourn the matter so that further discussions could be had with Corrective Services. The matters, which prevented Mr Venios being suitable, have now been resolved. The updated ICO report tendered today indicates a suitability to serve any sentence of imprisonment by way of an intensive corrections order.

1. On the occasions that I have dealt with Mr Venios in the past I have outlined the serious crime he committed and the substantial rehabilitation that he has achieved. There is no point in me repeating all of what I said then but I do want to say something before I impose sentence on Mr Venios. It is to amplify and repeat some particular aspects of what I said on the last occasions.

1. The ultimate purpose of sentencing offenders is to protect society. Judges impose sentences to promote the welfare of individual members of the community. Judges wish to see, to put it bluntly, the crime rate go down, because every time a crime is committed there is an associated victim. Ordinarily we seek to achieve that by imposing sentences on offenders which will act as a deterrent. The hope is that individual offenders will be deterred from committing crimes in the future and that others who might be tempted to also commit crimes will be deterred as they realise the likely consequences of their actions.

1. That is ordinarily what we do, impose sentences which are sometimes necessarily harsh to act as a deterrent. But that is not the only way that the crime rate can be reduced. In appropriate cases, and this is one, a sentence which focuses on an offender's rehabilitation can do more to protect society and promote the welfare of its individual members than a sentence which is designed to act as a deterrent. That is not to say of course that an intensive corrections order contains no element of punishment, it clearly does, but to pretend that it is as harsh as serving a sentence of imprisonment would be laughable.

1. Imposing on someone like Mr Venios, who committed a serious offence of robbery in company, a sentence which does not involve full time custody could only be justified if there was good evidence that such an outcome was the best way of promoting the welfare of the community. I am satisfied, for reasons which I have indicated earlier, that that is the case. Mr Venios has done well. He has satisfied me that an intensive corrections order will do most to promote him living a law abiding life. I am satisfied that to send Mr Venios back to gaol, I say "back" because he has already spent some time there before this offence, would risk undoing the rehabilitation he has achieved and that that would in turn raise the risk that he would commit further offences upon his release from custody, which of course will harm the victims of those offences.

1. For those reasons, acknowledging the unusual nature of what I am about to do, I sentence Mr Venios to imprisonment for two years. That sentence is to be served by way of an intensive corrections order. The sentence will commence on Monday 2 September 2013. The intensive corrections order is subject to the mandatory conditions prescribed by cl 175 of the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation. It is also subject to the following additional conditions: Mr Venios is to maintain contact with Dr Jonathon Mack and accept any referral to a psychologist for ongoing counselling. He is to undergo gambling assessment and counselling as may be directed by the Probation and Parole authorities and he is to also undergo any relevant drug and alcohol programs which may be ordered by the Probation and Parole Service.

1. I note the contents of exhibit 4. That document is not to be disclosed to Mr Venios. It is, however, to be disclosed to the Newtown Community Corrections Office in order that they can make appropriate arrangements as regards the community service component of the ICO imposed upon Mr Venios.

Mr Venios, you're not out of the woods yet, you understand. there is still the possibility that if you do not comply with the order you will go to gaol anyway, do you understand that?

OFFENDER: Yes, I do.

HIS HONOUR: Do you understand that's why you must comply strictly with any order, any direction that Corrections Services give you because if you don't comply there's really only one likely outcome and that is that you go to gaol, you understand?

OFFENDER; Yes, I do.

**********

Decision last updated: 02 October 2013