R v Hunt

The appeal concerned the decision of a judge to revoke an appellant's home detention order. The appellant had been ordered to serve her term of imprisonment on home detention. She subsequently committed two breaches of this order by consuming methylamphetamine, which was confirmed by positive urine analyses. The appellant admitted these breaches. The judge revoked the home detention order pursuant to section 73 of the Sentencing Act. The appellant contended that the judge erred in revoking the order, arguing that proper grounds existed to excuse her failure to comply, and that the judge should have granted an adjournment to obtain a further psychological report.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the judge erred in revoking the home detention order. Specifically, the Court considered whether the judge failed to find that proper grounds existed to excuse the appellant's breaches, and whether the judge erred in failing to grant an adjournment for a further psychological report, thereby potentially contravening section 73(13) of the Sentencing Act or the principles of procedural fairness. The appellant argued that the revocation was disproportionate to the nature of the breaches, which involved methylamphetamine use but were not accompanied by further substantive offending.

The Court held that the decision to revoke a home detention order is discretionary and would only be overturned on appeal if a *House v The King* error was demonstrated. The appellant had previously been warned about the consequences of further breaches after her first breach, and was given an adjournment to demonstrate that the breach was uncharacteristic. However, she breached the order again shortly thereafter. Section 73(1) of the Sentencing Act mandates revocation if a person breaches a condition of the order, unless subsection (2) applies, which allows the court to refrain from revoking if the failure to comply was trivial or there were proper grounds for excusing it. The appellant submitted that her breaches occurred in a stressful environment with drug users present, and that she was battling her addiction, exacerbated by media reports concerning her case. Despite these submissions, the Court found that the appellant had been warned and had reoffended shortly after the first breach.

The Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the judge's decision to revoke the home detention order. The judge's decision was within the scope of his discretion, and the appellant had failed to demonstrate the necessary grounds for intervention on appeal.