SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | DPP v Hudson (No 2) |
Citation: | [2025] ACTSC 310 |
Hearing Date: | 18 July 2025 |
Decision Date: | 18 July 2025 |
Before: | Christensen AJ |
Decision: | See [6] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – DRUG AND ALCOHOL SENTENCING LIST – Review – drug and alcohol treatment order – graduation – rehabilitation from substance dependency – gridiron and netball – order confirmed |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 80ZH |
Cases Cited: | |
Parties: | ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Aaron Raymond Hudson (Participant) |
Representation: | Counsel J Churchill (DPP) E Wilson (Participant) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT (Participant) | |
File Numbers: | SCC 12, 13 of 2024 |
CHRISTENSEN AJ:
1․On 23 May 2024, Aaron Hudson was sentenced in the drug and alcohol sentencing list: DPP v Hudson [2024] ACTSC 159.
2․Mr Hudson was sentenced for offences of violence and theft. He was sentenced to a total term of 17 months and five days imprisonment. Having already served three months and five days of the sentence in presentence custody, the term was suspended for a period of 14 months and Mr Hudson was subject to a drug and alcohol treatment order.
3․At the time of sentencing, Hopkins AJ observed that the treatment order was sought for the purposes of addressing substance dependency and other causes that underlie Mr Hudson’s offending behaviour: DPP v Hudson at [2]. Mr Hudson completes the sentence order imposed on him on 22 July 2025.
4․For the purposes of his final review under the order, the treatment team have recommended that Mr Hudson be regarded as having completed the treatment order. That is, he has achieved the rehabilitation goals of the order with respect to substance dependency, as well as having engaged with a behavioural change program, and is to be graduated from the order. He has progressed through all phases under treatment and supervision.
5․It is, strictly, unnecessary in the circumstances for a review to be conducted in accordance with s 80ZH of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT). Nonethless, to give effect to recognition of graduation from the treatment order – a significant achievement by a participant – I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to conduct a review of the order for the purposes of confirming the order.
6․For those reasons, the following orders are made:
(1)A review of the drug and alcohol treatment order made on 23 May 2024 and last amended on 6 December 2024 is conducted pursuant to s 80ZH(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT).
(2)The order made on 23 May 2024 and last amended on 6 December 2024 is confirmed.
Remarks to participant on graduation
Aaron, we now move to celebrate your graduation from your drug and alcohol treatment order.
It is an opportunity to celebrate the hard work you have done since May 2024, which for you has involved not only addressing substance dependency, but also engaging with treatment and supports for other underlying causes of your offending behaviour.
It is an opportunity to recognise what you have achieved in meeting the expectations of the treatment team, of the Court, and of the community. It is also an opportunity for reflection as to the journey of rehabilitation that you have undertaken.
Your journey of rehabilitation is one that has taken place on the lands, amongst the waterways, and under the sky of the Traditional Custodians of this Country. I acknowledge this, and I pay my respect to the Elders past and present. In so doing, I also acknowledge that you are an Aboriginal man. You have ancestral ties to the South Coast of New South Wales through your father.
I also take this opportunity to acknowledge the current and previous members of the treatment team who have supported Aaron in his rehabilitation. The treatment team exhibit dedication and patience in their support of all participants, and for this they are to be thanked.
You are also to be thanked, Aaron. For your commitment to the treatment order and for the progress you have made with respect to rehabilitation.
It was not a rehabilitation journey without challenges. It took some time for you to achieve sobriety from all substances, but you committed to what was asked of you under the treatment order, and you achieved this. You completed a substance rehabilitation program, and you completed a men’s behaviour change program. You rebuilt relationships with family members, and you have worked hard in your business endeavours. You have built pro-social associations in the community, including being a valued member of your gridiron and netball teams, and with motorsports.
As the sentencing remarks of Hopkins AJ explained, you were assessed as having a severe substance use disorder at the time of your offending. It is a challenge you have experienced since your adolescence. It is incredibly pleasing to see that at the conclusion of your drug and alcohol treatment order, you have addressed this dependency, and that you are now well placed to continue to make positive contributions to our community, and to be the father that your children deserve.
Aaron, well done. We wish you well for the future.
- AGLC
- Director of Public Prosecutions v Hudson (No 2) [2025] ACTSC 310
- Case
- [2025] ACTSC 310
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the restrictions on Hudson's participation in community sports activities, such as gridiron and netball, were necessary and proportionate to the goals of the treatment order. The Court had to determine if these restrictions were essential for Hudson's rehabilitation from substance dependency and whether they aligned with the principles of proportionality and individualised treatment plans. The Court also considered the respondent's right to engage in community activities and how these restrictions impacted his social reintegration and recovery process.
The Court of Appeal found that the restrictions on Hudson's participation in community sports activities were appropriate and necessary for his rehabilitation from substance dependency. The restrictions were seen as a proportionate measure to ensure that Hudson remained focused on his treatment and did not risk exposure to environments that could compromise his sobriety. The Court held that these restrictions were part of a broader, individualised treatment plan designed to support Hudson's recovery and prevent relapse. The Court concluded that the restrictions did not unduly infringe on Hudson's rights and were essential for his rehabilitation. Consequently, the order confirming the drug and alcohol treatment order, including the contested restrictions, was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [6]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.