That is the message from Victoria's top County Court judge as he endeavours to explain to The Courier the challenges judges are up against.

Discussions on sentencing were enlivened state-wide in 2021 after the sentencing of Richard Pusey, a Porsche driver who filmed police officers killed in a horror Eastern Freeway crash in 2020.

Chief Judge Peter Kidd released a rare statement on the case at the time to highlight the widespread community misunderstandings and the principles of sentencing applied.

Many cases completed in Ballarat have also drawn criticism after sentencing, particularly from victims or loved ones of victims who feel dissatisfied and disappointed by the justice system process.

This includes construction company Pipecon's conviction and $550,000 fine for failing to provide adequate supervision at the Delacombe worksite where Charlie Howkins and Jack Brownlee died in a trench in 2018.

Speaking to The Courier during a visit to Ballarat last fortnight, Chief Judge Kidd said sentencing was a complex exercise dictated by various legal principles found in the 600-page Sentencing Act and case law.

"Sentencing judges do not just pick a number at a whim," he said.

"Sentencing is not mathematical, it is a complex judgement made having regard to legal principles, the circumstances or gravity of the crime in question, the impact or harm to the victim or victims and then regard must also be had to the individual circumstances of the offender.

"...That will include an assessment of an offender's past and their prior convictions and a judge needs to make an assessment about an offender's prospects of rehabilitation moving forward.

"A judge needs to balance these factors to compose a sentence which is just and appropriate for that offender and that offence, having regard to all those circumstances.

"That is what we call individualised justice. It is not one size fits all. The sentence is tailored to those individual circumstances. One of my messages is that every case is different."

Chief Judge Kidd provided the example of an armed robbery of a milk bar to highlight individualised justice.

"You might have a 35-year-old man who has a number of prior convictions for violent offending including armed robbery and he goes into the milk bar armed with a gun. It is a calculated crime, it was premeditated.

"On the other hand you might have a very young person, let's say 18, who is extremely immature, makes a spontaneous decision to commit an armed robbery and grabs a stake from a fence as they approach the milk bar.

"The evidence before the court is this particular offender has great prospects of rehabilitation. Of course the community has great interests in rehabilitating people so they can be productive members of society.

"When you look at those two examples, it is the same offence, armed robbery, but I hope it would be clear to most people the older offender... is significantly more morally culpable than the younger offender and it will also be clear the older offender's prospects of rehabilitation are far more guarded.

"That would result in a different outcome in the sentencing process.... If we had a one size fits all approach the outcome for both of those offenders would be the same and that is not justice."

Chief Judge Kidd said judges heard cases over the course of many hours, analysed the evidence, applied legal principles to the facts and produced detailed written reasons for their sentence.

"Those reasons can be scrutinised by the public and if the judge does get it wrong it can be appealed to a higher court, but the reality is overwhelmingly judges do get it right," he said.

Chief Judge Kidd said he understood victims and their loved ones on occasions expressed feelings of disappointment and dissatisfaction after the completion of a case and this was an example of tensions in the sentencing process.

He said one of the most significant changes he had seen during his career over the past 20 to 30 years was the increasing emphasis on harm caused to victims.

"It has become more important in the sentencing process and that is a good change," Chief Judge Kidd said.

"If you look at the reasons for sentence given by a judge there is always a portion of those reasons dedicated to the harm caused to a victim by the offending in question.

"But the reality is the harm to the victim is one factor to take into account, it is an important factor but there are other factors the judge needs to consider.

"In some cases the victim may not agree with that process... the judge however has to get the sentence right as a matter of law.

"From time to time a victim may not agree with that outcome, it doesn't mean the sentence is wrong. Sometimes factors pull in the direction of a harsher sentence and other factors can pull towards a more lenient sentence.

"The judge is not acting as a practitioner for any particular party, they need to look at all of these competing principles to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

"Judges are bound to apply the law and the law is set by the government. The parliament makes the law and the role of the judge is to apply the law in court."

RELATED COVERAGE: Ballarat's court system almost back to pre-COVID normal

Sentencing can also never undo or reverse the harm inflicted upon the victims, Chief Judge Kidd said.

Chief Judge Kidd said he wanted community members to keep in mind the media's coverage of the courts was selective and the public did not receive information about all sentences handed down by the courts every day.

He said this was not a criticism of the media, but the reality was most of the work the court did on a daily basis received no media coverage at all.

"You are only seeing the tip of the iceberg. Much of the work we do is subject to no criticism at all," he said.

Chief Judge Kidd said imprisonment was the most serious sentencing disposition so a judge must conclude prison was necessary to properly reflect all sentencing purposes.

He said a community corrections order was not a 'soft option' and could help promote a person's rehabilitation, which was a good outcome for the community if they did not re-offend.

"A community corrections order is of itself punitive. It is a court order, the person must comply with conditions, often the conditions will require community work as well, it may run for many months or years and there may be judicial monitoring involved where the offender is brought back to court and the judge is given an update on how the person is performing," he said.

"It is not just a slap on the wrist. If they fail to comply with the order they face re-sentencing."

Chief Judge Kidd said he saw drug and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, homelessness, unemployment and other complex issues confronted the court on a daily basis.

He said the expansion of different court models like the Drug and Alcohol Treatment Court and rehabilitative sentencing options were key to addressing those underlying issues.

Chief Judge Kidd said it was a great privilege and honour to be a judge, playing an important role in the fabric of democracy.

"All judicial officers are acutely aware that every day they are performing this really important function on behalf of the community," he said.

"Judges are not directly answerable to the people, they are answerable to the law. That is what the community expects of them, that is why we have courts that are independent of governments and the parliament.

"Judges feel a great sense of pride in performing this really important public service."

If you are seeing this message you are a loyal digital subscriber to The Courier, as we made this story available only to subscribers. Thank you very much for your support and allowing us to continue telling Ballarat's story. We appreciate your support of journalism in our great city.