R v Hopper (No 2)

In *R v Hopper (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of South Australia considered the appropriate sentence for the appellant, who had appealed against sentences imposed by the District Court. Following the allowance of the appeal against the original sentences, the appellant was remanded in custody pending the preparation of a pre-sentence report to assist the court in resentencing.

The central legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant, taking into account the pre-sentence report, the circumstances of the offending, and the appellant's personal circumstances. This involved considering the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, which were described as difficult to assess and dependent on various factors including her ability to abstain from drug use, the nature of any treatment received, and her willingness to comply with support systems and associates.

The court acknowledged the serious criminogenic factors the appellant faced, despite her attempts to address them. It was determined that substantial assistance would be required for her rehabilitation, both in custody and on parole, to reduce her reoffending prospects. The court exercised its statutory discretion, under section 18A of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (now replaced by section 26 of the *Sentencing Act 2017*), to impose a single sentence for all offences. A head sentence of five years, six months, and two weeks imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of two years and ten months. This sentence was structured to provide a lengthy period of parole under strict supervision and with positive interventions, which the court considered critically important for the appellant's continuing rehabilitation.