SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Okwechime |
Citation: | [2015] ACTSC 129 |
Hearing Dates: | 23 April 2015; 1 May 2015 |
DecisionDate: | 14 May 2015 |
Before: | Burns J |
Decision: | See [20] – [33] |
Category: | Sentence |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Particular Offences – possess prohibited weapon – possess prohibited firearm – possess firearm without licence – possess ammunition – possess prohibited substance – breach of good behaviour orders – good behaviour orders cancelled – resentenced. |
Legislation Cited: | Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) s 42; 249 (1) Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) s 90B |
Cases Cited: | Thalari v R [2009] NSWLR 307 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Emeke Okwechime (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr A Doig (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitor (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 33 of 2015 |
Burns J:
The offences and procedural history
During the execution of a search warrant at premises where you, Mr Okwicheme, were living on 14 April last year, police located a prohibited firearm; namely, a Winchester 1200 Riot 12-guague pump sawn-off shotgun, a firearm, being an air rifle, and four prohibited weapons; namely, a taser, two black extendable batons and a knuckle duster. You were subsequently charged with and pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court to the following charges:
(a)one offence of possessing a prohibited firearm contrary to S 42 (1) (a) (iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment (CC14/8084);
(b)one offence of possessing a firearm without a licence contrary to s 43 (1) (a) (iii) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT), carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment (CC14/8085); and
(c)three offences of possessing a prohibited weapon contrary to s 5 of the Prohibited Weapons Act 1996 (ACT), each carrying a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment (CC14/0806; CC14/8087; CC14/8088).
On 20 February this year, you were committed for sentence to this Court on these charges. In addition, a charge of possessing ammunition for a firearm, being four shotgun rounds contrary to s 249 (1) of the Firearms Act 1996 (ACT) (CC14/11608) was transferred to this court by the Magistrates Court pursuant to s 90B of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) as a related offence to the charges which were committed for sentence. The ammunition was also found at your premises during the search on 14 April 2014. The maximum penalty for that offence of possession of ammunition is a fine of $1500.00. The other occupants of the premises where these items were located were your partner and your two-year-old son.
On 15 April 2014, you participated in a digital record of interview in which you admitted possession of the firearms, weapons and ammunition. You told police that you kept the shotgun and other weapons for protection against the Rebels motorcycle gang.
The proceedings concerning the items located on 14 April last year were commenced by way of summons in the Magistrates Court.…
Continue reading R v Okwechime
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Okwechime [2015] ACTSC 129
- Case
- [2015] ACTSC 129
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court involved assessing the severity of the appellant's criminal conduct and determining the appropriate sentence following the cancellation of his good behaviour orders. The court had to balance the need for deterrence, public protection, and the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation in sentencing. The court also had to consider the cumulative impact of the multiple offences and the appellant's previous convictions.
The court found that the appellant's criminal conduct was of a high degree of seriousness, given the nature and number of offences committed. The court noted that the appellant had a history of breaching good behaviour orders, indicating a pattern of non-compliance with legal requirements. The court also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately address the seriousness of the offences and to protect the community. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence, while also considering the possibility of rehabilitation.
The court ordered that the appellant be sentenced to imprisonment, with specific details regarding the length and conditions of the sentence provided in the judgment. The court also noted that the sentence would be subject to review in accordance with the applicable sentencing guidelines and principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [20] – [33]
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.