The case of Damien Richardson, a former television actor convicted of performing a Nazi salute, is heading back to court in July with prosecutors arguing that a magistrate's unusually creative sentence simply does not go far enough. The dispute offers a rare window into competing philosophies about what criminal punishment should achieve in a modern democracy.
Richardson, 56, was found guilty in November of intentionally performing a gesture that resembled a Nazi salute at a ticketed event, which was attended by neo-Nazis. He made the gesture while speaking at a gathering of the National Workers Alliance at Urban St restaurant in Melbourne's southeast in September 2024. The former Neighbours star complained about The Age newspaper likening him "to Adolf Hitler" before performing the gesture.
Rather than imposing a fine or jail time, Magistrate Justin Foster chose a path increasingly favoured in progressive criminal justice circles: restorative education. He was sentenced to an undertaking, requiring him to shadow a Jewish leader, pen an apology to the community, visit a Holocaust museum, and attend counselling sessions. If the conditions of the undertaking were not met, the prosecution could bring the case back to court and Richardson will face a $23,000 fine or 12 months' jail.
Here's the uncomfortable tension: the magistrate's reasoning was sensible enough. "It is important that education is extended to you in this case because I still don't think you truly get it," Foster said. This approach assumes Richardson's conviction was rooted in ignorance rather than malice; that exposure to the Jewish community and Holocaust history might shift his thinking. There is something genuinely humane in that view.
Yet the magistrate also found damning evidence of deliberate wrongdoing. Magistrate Justin Foster found Richardson knew that what he was doing was against the law as the actor said "are they going to fine or jail me?" while performing the salute. If Richardson understood the act was illegal in the moment, the question becomes sharper: is education the appropriate response to someone who broke the law with apparent knowledge and intent?
The court was told the Director of Public Prosecutions is also appealing against Richardson's sentence. Prosecutors are not arguing the conviction was wrongly decided. Rather, they contend that restorative approaches, however well-intentioned, may send the wrong message about consequences. The two appeals are set to be heard together across two days in July. Police will call two witnesses, including an officer and an expert on Nazi salutes.
The Richardson case sits at a genuine philosophical fork. One path emphasises rehabilitation and understanding: breaking the cycle of extremism through dialogue and exposure. The other emphasises deterrence and proportionality: ensuring that deliberate law-breaking carries real costs. Reasonable people disagree on which should dominate, and the disagreement is not partisan. Some on the centre-left worry that purely punitive sentences entrench resentment. Some on the centre-right worry that light sentences for serious offences signal that the law is negotiable.
What makes the Richardson case instructive is that both approaches rest on legitimate foundations. We do want to prevent extremism from taking root. We also do want meaningful accountability for intentional violations of the law. The magistrate tried to split the difference. Whether that balance will survive scrutiny in the County Court remains to be seen.
Richardson appeared via video link in Melbourne's County Court on Friday as he launched an appeal of his conviction. He will have the opportunity to test whether his conduct was truly illegal or merely offensive. The prosecutors will test whether education alone can serve as accountability. Both arguments deserve a serious hearing. That is the point of appellate courts.