Okafor v R [2007] NSWCCA 147

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Okafor v R [2007] NSWCCA 147

HEARING DATE(S): 12/04/2007

JUDGMENT DATE: 30 May 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Howie J at 2; Hall J at 49

DECISION: The appeal against conviction is dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence is granted but the appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Appeal - whether verdict unreasonable - Investigation - whether listening device warrant invalid as a general warrant.

LEGISLATION CITED: Customs Act Evidence Act

CASES CITED: Warner v Elder (NSWSC, unreported, 23 April 1997) MacGibbon v Warner (1997) 98 A Crim R 450

PARTIES: Emmanuel Nnamdi Okafor v Regina

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/2566

COUNSEL: I. Bourke - Crown Self - Appellant

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP - Crown Self - Appellant

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2005/11/0541

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie-Wallace DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 24/02/2006

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2006/2566

McCLELLAN CJ at CL HOWIE J HALL J

WEDNESDAY 30 May 2007 Emmanuel Nnamdi OKAFOR v REGINA Judgment 1 McCLELLAN CJ AT CL: I agree with Howie J. 2 HOWIE J: The appellant, who is unrepresented before this Court, was convicted after trial by jury of an offence that on or about 22 March 2005 he attempted to possess goods that had been imported into Australia in contravention of the Customs Act being narcotic goods consisting of a quantity of heroin of not less than the trafficable quantity for that drug. The trial was conducted before Judge Ainslie-Wallace (the Judge) and the appellant was represented by counsel. As a consequence of his conviction the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with a non-parole period of four years. The appellant is eligible for release to parole on 21 March 2009. 3 The form of Notice of Appeal completed by the appellant indicates that he is appealing against both his conviction and sentence. The grounds of appeal filed and the written submissions he has placed before the Court refer mainly to his conviction. In effect the appellant contends that the conviction was unreasonable in light of a number of matters that he has raised as grounds of appeal. They are as follows: