Antarakis v The Queen

The appellant, Antarakis, appealed against a District Court decision that found she had breached the conditions of a suspended sentence. The suspended sentence was imposed following her conviction for possession of methylamphetamine with intent to sell. The conditions of the suspension included abstaining from drugs not lawfully prescribed and undergoing drug testing. The appeal concerned whether the appellant's use of methylamphetamine constituted a breach of the good behaviour condition and whether the drug abstinence condition was lawfully imposed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Direction Letter, which imposed the drug abstinence and testing conditions, was a lawful direction from a community corrections officer. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Ministerial Authorisation permitted such a condition, or if the letter, when objectively construed, only directed submission to drug testing. Furthermore, the court considered whether the appellant's use of methylamphetamine constituted a breach of the good behaviour condition, and if so, whether there were proper grounds to excuse the breach or justify a reduction in the head sentence and non-parole period under section 114(5)(a) of the Sentencing Act 2017.

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia found that the first limb of the judge's finding, that the appellant breached the abstinence condition in the Direction Letter, was erroneous because that condition was unlawful. The court reasoned that the Ministerial Authorisation did not empower a community corrections officer to impose a drug abstinence condition. Regarding the alleged failure to be of good behaviour, the court reiterated that "good behaviour" in the context of a bond generally means observance of the criminal law, but not every breach of the criminal law constitutes a breach of this condition. The conduct must be examined in its circumstances and considered a relapse into non-law-abiding ways, rather than a minor infringement of regulatory rules.

The court concluded that Ground 2, concerning the alleged failure to be of good behaviour by using methylamphetamine, was not established and refused permission to appeal on that ground. However, the court found the first limb of the judge's finding that the appellant breached the abstinence condition to be erroneous due to the unlawfulness of that condition.