Background
On 5 October 2025, police responded to a domestic disturbance at an address in South Australia. When the appellant, Masouma Hussaini, was asked about her version of events, she became upset and directed increasingly offensive language at both the police officers and the other person involved in the dispute. Despite repeated warnings to cease her abusive behaviour, she was arrested and taken into custody. The appellant was intoxicated at the time. On 15 January 2026, she pleaded guilty to disorderly behaviour under section 7(1)(a) of the Summary Offences Act 1953 (SA) and was fined $100 by the Magistrates Court.
The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that the court should exercise its discretion under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA) not to record a conviction. The Magistrate had declined to do so, and the Crown initially opposed the appeal on the ground that the court could not be satisfied the appellant was unlikely to reoffend, particularly given she had committed a similar offence in August 2024. However, before the Supreme Court hearing, the Crown conceded the grounds of appeal had been made out and agreed the sentence should be quashed.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Bochner allowed the appeal, quashed the original conviction, and resentenced the appellant to a fine of $105 with no conviction recorded. The court exercised its discretion under section 24 of the Sentencing Act 2017 (SA), which permits a court to impose a penalty without recording a conviction where it is satisfied the defendant is unlikely to reoffend and good reason exists not to record a conviction, having regard to the defendant’s character, antecedents, age, mental or physical condition, or other extenuating circumstances.
Justice Bochner found good reasons to exercise this discretion in the appellant’s favour. The court noted her difficult early life—she had fled Afghanistan as an infant, survived a boat fire, and lived in a detention centre until 2004—and her efforts to better herself through education and employment as an aged care worker. Critically, the court found that the appellant had been suffering from untreated mental health conditions (anxiety, depression, and borderline personality disorder) at the time of both the current and the prior 2024 offence. Having commenced psychological treatment in May 2026 and being proactively managed through a mental health plan, the court was satisfied she was unlikely to reoffend. The court also considered the time in custody and the realisation of a conviction’s career consequences as sufficiently deterrent, and characterised the offence as serious but at the lower end of the scale.
Key Takeaways
- Courts may exercise discretion not to record a conviction even where an offender has committed a similar offence previously, if proper grounds exist under section 24.
- Active mental health treatment and demonstrated efforts at rehabilitation are significant factors in assessing likelihood of reoffence and justifying non-conviction outcomes.
- Difficult personal and social background, combined with proactive engagement with treatment, can satisfy the court that good reason exists not to record a conviction.
- A conviction can have serious deleterious effects on employment prospects and career progression, which courts will consider in the discretionary balance.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how Australian courts exercise sentencing discretion to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. It demonstrates that section 24 discretion is not displaced by a prior similar offence where the offender demonstrates genuine commitment to addressing underlying causes of behaviour—here, untreated mental health conditions. For individuals with criminal records, the decision signals that courts will carefully consider the collateral consequences of recording a conviction, particularly where employment or professional qualification is at stake.
The judgment also reflects contemporary sentencing principles recognising the importance of mental health in criminal conduct. By accepting that the appellant’s untreated mental illness was causative of both offences, and that she is now unlikely to reoffend through active treatment engagement, the court applied principles of rehabilitation and proportionality. This approach may influence similar cases involving offenders with mental health conditions who seek to avoid conviction recording.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.