R v HOPPER

This case concerned an appeal against sentence by the appellant, R v Hopper. The dispute centred on whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation when imposing a sentence for property offences, specifically burglary and housebreaking. The appeal was heard by Kelly, Blue and Nicholson JJ.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the sentencing judge had failed to take into account relevant factors concerning the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation, as required by law. The appellant argued that the sentencing remarks did not demonstrate a sufficient consideration of these factors, despite substantial material being presented regarding her changed personal circumstances, cessation of drug use, engagement with support programs, and desire to rebuild relationships with her children.

The court acknowledged that the sentencing judge made only a brief, express reference to rehabilitation, noting the provision of information about carers who would encourage rehabilitation. However, the court found it difficult to definitively ascertain the extent of the judge's consideration of rehabilitation prospects from the sentencing remarks alone. Despite this, the court reasoned that given the comprehensive nature of the sentencing conference and the detailed submissions presented by both parties concerning the appellant's rehabilitation, it was unlikely that these matters were not considered by the judge. The court noted that while there might be an argument that these factors were given less weight than warranted, this did not amount to a procedural error under the principles established in *House v The King*. The appellant needed to establish that the judge failed to take these matters into consideration at all, which the court found unlikely given the circumstances.