Legal Research
Cases
R v Ackling-Nicholson

R v Ackling-Nicholson

Case [2025] NSWDC 277 25 July 2025

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Ackling-Nicholson [2025] NSWDC 277
Hearing dates: 12 June 2025 – Sentence Hearing
25 July 2025 – Sentence Remarks
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
At [103]

Catchwords:
CRIME – Firearm offences – Drug offences

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84
R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391
R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
Chandab v R [2001] NSWCCA 186
Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284
Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205
R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252
McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29
DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200
Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79
R v Valentini (1989) 46 ACR 23
R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111
R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R
R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226
RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36
R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37
IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70
BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978
R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25
R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jake Barry Bob Ackling-Nicholson
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr Hart (for the Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms Sigalla (for the Crown)
Mr Clowry (for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/00316213
Publication restriction: Sensitive information was redacted from the remarks as published. The parties have been provided with the unredacted version of the remarks.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

The offender, Jake Barry Bob Ackling-Nicholson, appears today to be sentenced for a range of offences, committed during a period of two months in September and October 2023. The offending took place over two incidents, the first occurring between 4 and 9 September 2023, and the second occurring on 5 October 2023. The offender was arrested and charged with the offences before the Court on 5 October 2023. He has been in custody since this date, having spent a total of 660 days in custody for this offending. The offender is entitled to a 25% discount on sentence for his early guilty plea.

CHARGES

The offences, maximum penalties, standard non-parole periods and findings as to the objective seriousness for reasons given in these remarks are set out in the Table which is attached to and forms part of these remarks. The Table also sets out the charges placed on the Form 1 documents as they attach to the primary charges for sentence.

MAXIMUM PENALTIES

The maximum penalties and the standard non-parole periods are guideposts for sentencing Judges as to the seriousness with which the community, through parliament, views offending of this type.
In Markarian v The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ackling-Nicholson

Details

AGLC: R v Ackling-Nicholson [2025] NSWDC 277
Case: [2025] NSWDC 277
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ackling-Nicholson was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Ackling-Nicholson, was charged with firearm offences, including possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence, and drug offences, including possession of a prohibited drug. The case involved an incident where Ackling-Nicholson was found in possession of a firearm and a quantity of a prohibited drug. The central issue was whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish Ackling-Nicholson's guilt beyond reasonable doubt for the charges laid.

The court considered several legal issues, including the admissibility of evidence obtained during a search and the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to firearms and drug offences. The primary question was whether the prosecution had proven all elements of the charges against Ackling-Nicholson. The court also examined the credibility of witnesses and the reliability of the evidence provided.

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established the necessary elements of the charges against Ackling-Nicholson. The evidence, including witness testimony and forensic analysis, was deemed credible and reliable. The court concluded that Ackling-Nicholson was guilty of all the charges brought against him. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence, the legal standards for criminal liability, and the application of relevant statutory provisions.

The final orders of the court included a conviction on all charges, with sentencing to be determined in a subsequent hearing. Ackling-Nicholson was found guilty of possession of a firearm and ammunition without a licence, as well as possession of a prohibited drug. The court ordered a pre-sentence report to assist in determining the appropriate penalty for the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [103]

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Ackling-Nicholson [2025] NSWDC 277

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 22 of 22 shown

RG v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 36 Para 88

…I note more recently in the matter of RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36, Yehia J at [74]…
Tukuafu v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 84 Para 13

…guideline judgment for Form 1 offences and have regard to the relevant authorities and principles set out by her Honour Judge Huggett in Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84 at [86]-[131]. Offences contained on Form 1 documents are considered by the Court with a view of increasing the ultimate penalty imposed for the prin…
DH v R
[2022] NSWCCA 200 Para 42

…McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29, identify “fully the facts, matters and circumstances” which bear upon the sentence imposed. Per Yehia J in DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 at [59], for all offences, including those attracting standard non-parole periods, (here, Counts 4, 5, 6, 11 and 13), I need not assess where each offenc…
Sarhene v R
[2022] NSWCCA 79 Para 54

…t case, the objective seriousness of some of the offending leaves me no choice but to sentence the offender to a term of imprisonment. In Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79, Hamill J said at [38]:…
McDowall v R
[2019] NSWCCA 29 Para 42

…objective gravity of each offence separately and without reference to the subjective case of the offender and, per Adamson J at [36] of McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29, identify “fully the facts, matters and circumstances” which bear upon the sentence imposed. Per Yehia J in DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 at [59], for all…
Parente v R
[2017] NSWCCA 284 Para 37

…I adopt the general principles espoused in Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 at [108]-[112].…
Luque v R
[2017] NSWCCA 226 Para 86

…In the case of Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226, Hamill J noted that the application of De La Rosa is not burdened by a lack of causation between the offending and the mental health of the offender. At [114], his Honour said:…
Robertson v R
[2017] NSWCCA 205 Para 41

…Finally, as recognised by Simpson J in Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205 at [50]:…
JM v R
[2015] NSWSC 978 Para 96

…In JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978, in the context of a decision in relation to bail pending trial, with respect to a 21 year old, Garling J observed:…
Muldrock v The Queen
[2011] HCA 39 Para 7

…Indeed, in a single judgment, all Justices of the High Court in Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 held at [17]:…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 85

…In the case of DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1, McClellan CJ at [177] said the fact that an offender has “ a mental illness, intellectual handicap or other mental problems ” may be considered at sentencing. Principles which his Honour summarised at [177], and which are also relevant to this Offender, are:…
BP v R
[2010] NSWCCA 159 Para 95

…In BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159, Hodgson J observed at [5]:…
Ie v R
[2008] NSWCCA 70 Para 94

…youth is a recognised mitigating factor and, generally, the younger the offender, the greater the weight it should be given. In the case of IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70, Latham J at [19]–[21] finds that an offender’s youth does not generally impact upon the assessment of the offence’s objective seriousness but may impa…
R v Whyte
[2006] NSWCCA 75 Para 42

…from both the Crown and the offender (MFI 2 and 3 respectively) in assessing the objective seriousness of the offences. In accordance with R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252, I must form a preliminary view on the objective gravity of each offence separately and without reference to the subjective case of the offender and,…
R v Krstic
[2005] NSWCCA 391 Para 34

…ch Courts have repeatedly stressed the importance of giving full weight to the intent of the legislature. It was recognised by Latham J in R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 at [14], in the context of a prohibited pistol, that:…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25 Para 4

…In Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 at [30]-[31], Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ said:…
R v Tolley
[2004] NSWCCA 165 Para 35

…Further, part of my assessment of the seriousness of the offending according to Howie J in R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 at [53], and by reference to section 3 of the Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), is to:…
R v El-Hayek
[2004] NSWCCA 25 Para 101

…A finding of special circumstances is a discretionary finding of fact ( R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25 at [103]). The full range of subjective considerations is capable of warranting a finding of special circumstances ( R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at [46]). It will be comparatively rare for an issue to be incapa…
R v Dawson (No 2)
[2001] NSWCCA 186 Para 36

…The observations of Wilson J in Chandab v R [2001] NSWCCA 186 at [81] are also relevant, that:…
R v Hearne
[2001] NSWCCA 37 Para 94

…The offender was 21 years of age at the time of the offending. According to R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37 at [27], an offender’s youth is a recognised mitigating factor and, generally, the younger the offender, the greater the weight it should be given. In the case of IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70, Latham J at [19]–[21] fi…
Regina v Simpson
[1999] NSWCCA 367 Para 101

…yek [2004] NSWCCA 25 at [103]). The full range of subjective considerations is capable of warranting a finding of special circumstances ( R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704 at [46]). It will be comparatively rare for an issue to be incapable, as a matter of law, of ever constituting a “special circumstance”.…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 76

…mitigating factor, as clarified in the decision of R v Valentini (1989) 46 ACR 23 at [25], as well as the remarks of Spigelman CJ in R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111 at [206].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 4

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 5)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 43)
Firearms Act 1996 (TAS)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Ackling-Nicholson [2025] NSWDC 277
Hearing dates:	12 June 2025 – Sentence Hearing 25 July 2025 – Sentence Remarks
Date of orders:	25 July 2025
Decision date:	25 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	At [103]
Catchwords:	CRIME – Firearm offences – Drug offences
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW) Weapons Prohibition Act 1998 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Tukuafu v R [2024] NSWCCA 84 R v Krstic [2005] NSWCCA 391 R v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165 Chandab v R [2001] NSWCCA 186 Parente v R [2017] NSWCCA 284 Robertson v R [2017] NSWCCA 205 R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 McDowall v R [2019] NSWCCA 29 DH v R [2022] NSWCCA 200 Sarhene v R [2022] NSWCCA 79 R v Valentini (1989) 46 ACR 23 R v Henry & Ors [1999] NSWCCA 111 R v Engert (1995) 84 A Crim R R v Osenkowski (1982) 5 A Crim R 394 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Luque v R [2017] NSWCCA 226 RG v R [2025] NSWCCA 36 R v Hearne [2001] NSWCCA 37 IE v R [2008] NSWCCA 70 BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159 JM v R [2015] NSWSC 978 R v El-Hayek [2004] NSWCCA 25 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Rex (Crown) Jake Barry Bob Ackling-Nicholson
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Hart (for the Offender) Solicitors: Ms Sigalla (for the Crown) Mr Clowry (for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/00316213
Publication restriction:	Sensitive information was redacted from the remarks as published. The parties have been provided with the unredacted version of the remarks.