R v Okike - [2025] NSWDC 368

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Okike [2025] NSWDC 368
Hearing dates: 1 August 2025
Date of orders: 1 August 2025
Decision date: 01 August 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

Catchwords:
CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug
CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess prohibited firearm — Possess prohibited pistol
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Facilitation of justice

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW)
Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182
Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357
Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183

Category: Sentence
Parties: Alphonsus Obinna Okike (the offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:
Offender (self-represented)
Solicitors:
T George Solicitor Advocate for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/152940

JUDGMENT – ex tempore revised

On 24 February 2025 at Wollongong District Court, Alphonsus Okike said that he was not guilty of three serous charges:

Possess a pistol without being authorised to do so: Firearms Act 1996 (NSW), s 7(1);

Possess a shortened firearm not a pistol without authority: Firearms Act, s 62(1)(b); and

Supply a prohibited drug, namely 170 grams of methylamphetamine: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25(1).

On 26 February 2025 a jury of twelve found him guilty of each count. The matter was adjourned to a date in May for sentence.
Okike was not represented at trial. I am not sure why he did not get Legal Aid. On the last occasion I gave him an adjournment to see if he could get legal representation; he was not able to do so. He spoke on his own behalf today.
In the Local Court he said he was guilty of possession of 15.5 grams of cannabis subject to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act, and he is also for sentence for that matter today. In addition, there were a number of matters sent to this Court pursuant to s 166 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW). I resolved them this morning. With one exception, they were either withdrawn or dismissed. I found him guilty of possession of the ammunition; charged pursuant to s 65(3) Firearms Act. This offence related to the bullets in the pistol, the subject of Count 1. The maximum penalty for that offence is a fine. The possession of a loaded pistol is an aggravating factor when I come to sentence for Count 1. In those circumstances it would be inexpedient to do anything more than record a conviction. I will deal with the matter pursuant to s 10A Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). He should…

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 Okike

Details

AGLC: R v Okike [2025] NSWDC 368
Case: [2025] NSWDC 368
Decision Date: 01 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Okike, the appellant, Mr Okike, was convicted of multiple drug and firearms offences. The charges included supplying a prohibited drug, possessing a prohibited firearm, and possessing a prohibited pistol. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the appellant's appeal against sentence was considered. The key issue for the court was to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the objective seriousness of the crimes, while also considering the appellant's good character and the possibility of facilitating his rehabilitation.

The court had to weigh the severity of the appellant's criminal activities against his otherwise good character and the potential for rehabilitation. The objective seriousness of the crimes was evident, given the nature of the drug and firearms offences. However, the appellant's cooperation with authorities and his otherwise clean criminal record were mitigating factors that needed to be considered. The court also had to determine a non-parole period that would ensure public safety while providing an opportunity for the appellant to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.

The court concluded that an aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years, was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need to punish the appellant for his crimes with the possibility of his rehabilitation. The court found that the appellant's good character and his cooperation with authorities were significant mitigating factors, but they did not outweigh the objective seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also considered the potential for the sentence to facilitate the appellant's rehabilitation and reintegration into society, which supported a sentence that allowed for some flexibility in the non-parole period.

The court ordered that the appellant serve an aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years and 9 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years. This sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the objective seriousness of the crimes and the mitigating factors present in the case. The court's decision aimed to provide an appropriate punishment while also offering the appellant an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Okike [2025] NSWDC 368
Hearing dates:	1 August 2025
Date of orders:	1 August 2025
Decision date:	01 August 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Haesler SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate imprisonment sentence of 3 years 9 months with a non-parole period of 2 years
Catchwords:	CRIME — Drug offences — Supply prohibited drug CRIME — Firearms offences — Possess prohibited firearm — Possess prohibited pistol SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Objective seriousness SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Facilitation of justice
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) Firearms Act 1996 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Do v R [2010] NSWCCA 182 Mack v R [2009] NSWCCA 216 Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; (2005) 228 CLR 357 Tran v R [2010] NSWCCA 183
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Alphonsus Obinna Okike (the offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
Representation:	Offender (self-represented) Solicitors: T George Solicitor Advocate for Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/152940