Secretary to the Department of Justice and Community Safety v Ss (No 2)

The respondents, Ss, were before the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria charged with breaching the conditions of their supervision orders. The charges stemmed from multiple instances of alleged contravention of urinalysis and curfew conditions. The court was required to determine whether the officers who directed the urinalysis had reasonable grounds to suspect the respondents had consumed drugs, and whether the prosecution had disproved any reasonable excuse the respondents may have had for the breaches.

The court considered the evidence provided by the officers, including their observations and training, to determine if the suspicion of drug consumption was reasonable. The court also examined the respondents' arguments regarding their reasonable excuse for the alleged breaches. The court found that the officers had reasonable grounds to suspect drug consumption, and that the prosecution had successfully disproved any reasonable excuse provided by the respondents. The respondents were found guilty on all charges under the Serious Offenders Act 2018.

The court's decision hinged on the balance of probabilities, with the prosecution successfully meeting its burden to disprove any reasonable excuse on the balance of probabilities. The court found that the officers' suspicions were reasonable based on their training and observations, and that the respondents' excuses were not sufficient to rebut the presumption of guilt. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles, with the respondents found guilty of breaching the conditions of their supervision orders.

The final orders of the court included the respondents being found guilty on all charges, and the matter being referred to the County Court of Victoria for sentencing. The respondents were also required to attend a drug treatment program as a condition of their supervision orders. The court's decision was based on the evidence presented and the applicable legal principles, with the respondents found guilty of breaching the conditions of their supervision orders.