Okwechime v The Queen

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, constituted by McCallum CJ, Mossop and Charlesworth JJ, heard an appeal by Chidi Chike Okwechime against his convictions and sentences. The appellant had been found guilty by a jury of sexual intercourse without consent (Counts 2 and 4) and intentionally and unlawfully choking, suffocating, or strangling the complainant (Count 5). He appealed these convictions on the grounds that the verdicts were unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, he sought leave to appeal on the basis of a miscarriage of justice due to the absence of a direction regarding his criminal status, and appealed his sentences for Counts 4 and 5, arguing they were disproportionate and that the sentencing judge erred in assessing the duration of the choking offence.

The Court was required to determine whether the jury's verdicts of guilty on Counts 2, 4, and 5 were unreasonable or could not be supported by the evidence. It also had to consider whether a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the trial judge's failure to provide a direction concerning the appellant's criminal status, particularly after such material was raised in cross-examination. Furthermore, the Court was tasked with assessing whether the sentencing judge made errors in determining the duration of the choking offence and in imposing a sentence for Count 4 that was allegedly disproportionate to the objective gravity of the offence.

The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding that the matters raised by the appellant collectively failed to render the jury's verdicts unreasonable. Regarding the alleged miscarriage of justice, leave to raise this ground was refused because the appellant's counsel had introduced the appellant's criminal status during cross-examination, and the appellant was bound by his counsel's conduct. The appeals against sentence were also dismissed. The Court found no specific error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the choking offence's duration, noting that the appellant's counsel had accepted a 15-second duration during sentencing submissions. Similarly, no specific error was identified in the sentencing for Count 4, and there was no allegation of manifest excessiveness, leading to the dismissal of that ground of appeal.