Background
Srinivas Naidu Chamakuri was convicted after a jury trial of participating in a criminal group, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and four attempted deception offences. The offending involved fraudulent NAB bank guarantees used in a property transaction and fraudulent internal bank vouchers used in attempts to obtain substantial sums. The sentencing judge found that Chamakuri recruited and directed another person to prepare and deposit vouchers while keeping himself outside bank CCTV coverage.
In May 2025, the District Court imposed an aggregate three-year prison sentence with a non-parole period of 18 months. Although Chamakuri had significant physical and mental-health conditions, no prior convictions, family support, and a low assessed risk of reoffending, the judge declined to order that the sentence be served as an intensive correction order (ICO). Chamakuri appealed only that decision.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Criminal Appeal granted leave but dismissed the appeal. It held that the sentencing judge had properly performed the forward-looking assessment required by s 66(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW): whether an ICO or full-time detention was more likely to address the risk of reoffending in a way affecting community safety.
It was open to the sentencing judge to treat the evidence as inconclusive. She could weigh the factors favouring an ICO against Chamakuri’s failure to accept responsibility and lack of insight into his offending. Once the comparative community-safety assessment was inconclusive, the judge was entitled to treat other sentencing purposes—including punishment, deterrence, accountability and denunciation—as determinative. Bail was revoked and Chamakuri was ordered into custody to serve the balance of his sentence, with credit for 13 days already served.
Key Takeaways
- An ICO is not required merely because it may support rehabilitation or avoid adverse health effects of custody.
- Under s 66(2), community safety is paramount, but the comparative assessment may properly be inconclusive.
- Where that assessment is inconclusive, other sentencing purposes can justify full-time detention.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that an offender’s favourable personal circumstances and low assessed reoffending risk do not compel an ICO. A sentencing judge may consider a lack of responsibility and insight when comparing how community-based custody and full-time detention may affect future offending.
It also applies the High Court’s approach in Stanley: community safety will usually be decisive in the ICO decision, but not where the available evidence does not establish which sentencing mode better addresses reoffending risk.