R v BRISTOGIANNIS

The appeal concerned the sentence imposed on the appellant, Ms. Bugaj, for a drug offence. The dispute arose from the appellant's contention that the sentence of imprisonment should have been suspended due to hardship, pursuant to section 38(1) of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA). The matter was before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising their discretion by not suspending the sentence of imprisonment, and if so, what the appropriate course of action should be. Specifically, the court had to determine if the hardship experienced by the appellant constituted "good reason" for suspension under the Act, and whether the sentencing judge's assessment of this criterion was flawed. The court also considered the principles governing appellate intervention in sentencing decisions, particularly in light of the High Court's decision in *Kentwell v The Queen*.

The court affirmed that the sole statutory criterion for suspending a sentence of imprisonment is the existence of "good reason" to do so. While some authorities have referred to "exceptional circumstances," this was understood not as a separate test, but as a means of assessing all relevant circumstances to identify good reason. The court noted that for certain serious offences, demonstrating good reason for suspension may be difficult, reflecting a practical reality rather than a displacement of the statutory test. The court reiterated that appellate intervention in sentencing discretion is only warranted where an error, such as a material consideration not being taken into account, is demonstrated, as per the principles in *House v R*. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the statutory criterion and that there was no error in the exercise of discretion.

The appeal was dismissed.