AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 16 July 2026

R v Odisho

[2026] NSWDC 337

Firearms & weapons
FIREARM SUPPLY NON EXCULPATORY DURESS CHILDHOOD DISADVANTAGE REFUGEE STATUS ACCULTURATION

Citation: R v Odisho [2026] NSWDC 337
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 16 July 2026
Judge(s): Beckett DCJ

Background

The offender, a 32-year-old man at the time of the offences, appeared for sentencing after pleading guilty to unlawfully selling firearms on three or more occasions within a 12-month period, contrary to section 51B(1) of the Firearms Act 1996. Between June and July 2024, he supplied or offered to supply three pistols to an undercover witness, using the encrypted messaging application Threema to arrange the transactions. He was subject to both a firearms prohibition order and a parole order at the time.

The offender had a significant prior criminal history arising from a 2019 arrest involving commercial drug supply, unauthorised possession of firearms, and dealing with proceeds of crime. He had been released on parole in June 2023, less than 18 months before the current offending came to light. His parole was revoked upon his arrest on 27 November 2024.

The sentencing proceedings involved consideration of the offender's refugee background, a diagnosis of PTSD stemming from being shot during the 2019 incident in which his flatmate was killed, and a contested claim that he committed the offences under non-exculpatory duress arising from threats connected to a substantial debt.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the offending fell above or below the mid-range of objective seriousness for a section 51B(1) offence
  • Whether the offender established non-exculpatory duress on the balance of probabilities, so as to reduce his moral culpability
  • What weight to give to the offender's refugee background, PTSD, and early life disadvantage under the Bugmy principles
  • How to apply totality in setting an aggregate sentence across the principal offence, Form 1 matters, and the proceeds of crime offence
  • Whether special circumstances warranted a departure from the standard non-parole period

Decision

Objective seriousness of the firearm supply offence

Beckett DCJ found that the offending fell below the mid-range but not at the lowest end of the range for section 51B(1) offences (at [46]). Three pistols were involved, all easily concealable, and two had obliterated or non-existent serial numbers (at [39]). The transactions were elaborately organised: encrypted communications, assumed identities, different vehicles, neutral meeting locations, and gloves were all used to avoid detection (at [42]). The combined agreed prices of the three firearms exceeded $110,000 (at [41]). The offending continued even after the offender was stopped and questioned by police on the day of the first supply (at [40]).

Non-exculpatory duress

The defence submitted that the offender committed the offences because of threats to harm his family arising from a debt of $500,000, and that this reduced his moral culpability. Beckett DCJ rejected this claim (at [84]). The offender did not give evidence and provided only a vague account through his psychologist. No corroborating evidence established who made the threats, their nature, or their terms. The court noted that claims of duress are easy to make and difficult to disprove, and that the offender's apparent financial difficulties from gambling and drug addiction were not surprising without establishing a threatened debt of the magnitude claimed (at [78], [82]-[84]).

Bugmy principles: refugee background and PTSD

The court accepted that the offender's early life as a member of a persecuted religious minority in Iraq, his decade as a refugee in Jordan, and his difficult settlement in Australia all constituted genuine disadvantage that contextualised his path into criminal conduct (at [89]-[92]). Beckett DCJ applied the Bugmy principles, finding that these early life factors and the resulting acculturative stress diminished the offender's moral culpability and reduced the weight to be given to general deterrence to a degree (at [93]). The court also accepted that PTSD arising from the 2019 shooting impacted the offender's judgment and decision-making, further diminishing moral culpability (at [94]).

Rehabilitation prospects

The court reached a qualified conclusion on rehabilitation. It declined to find that the offender was unlikely to reoffend, noting his rapid return to offending after commencing parole, his relapse into drug use and gambling, and his failure to pursue any of the treatment recommendations made after the 2019 proceedings (at [85]). However, the court accepted some basis for hope given his supportive family and brother, favourable conduct in custody, and completion of TAFE courses (at [86]).

Aggregate sentence and totality

Beckett DCJ applied a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of the early plea of guilty (at [87]). Special circumstances were found, warranting a departure from the standard non-parole period, on the basis that the offender would need extended supervision on release to address drug use, gambling, PTSD, and compliance with his firearms prohibition order (at [100]). The standard non-parole period of ten years for the section 51B(1) offence served as a legislative guidepost, from which the court departed by reason of the plea, the findings on objective criminality, and the special circumstances finding (at [101]).

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of all offences to which he pleaded guilty.
  • An aggregate sentence of five years and two months imprisonment was imposed, with a non-parole period of three years and five months, commencing 27 November 2024 and expiring 26 January 2030.
  • Indicative sentence for sequence 1 (section 51B(1) offence, after 25% discount and taking into account Form 1 matters): 60 months, with an indicative non-parole period of 40 months.
  • Indicative sentence for sequence 5 (proceeds of crime offence): six months.
  • First eligible parole date: 26 April 2028, subject to the Parole Authority's discretion.
  • Mr McLean's report referred to Community Corrections.
  • Forfeiture order granted.

Key Takeaways

  • A claim of non-exculpatory duress advanced at sentence must be established on the balance of probabilities. Where the offender does not give evidence, provides only a vague account through a third-party report, and fails to identify the nature or source of the alleged threat with any particularity, the claim will not meet that threshold (at [75]-[84]).

  • Under the Bugmy principles, a refugee background involving persecution, prolonged displacement, and difficult settlement in Australia can reduce an offender's moral culpability and moderate the weight given to general deterrence, even where those factors are not directly causally connected to the offending (at [89]-[94]).

  • Acting as a middleman in the supply of illegal firearms does not necessarily reduce culpability. The District Court confirmed, consistent with R v Mohamad and Dionys v R, that an intermediary role may not substantially lessen a person's moral blameworthiness (at [35]).

  • The absence of serial numbers on illegally supplied firearms is a recognised aggravating feature, as it renders firearms untraceable and is an indicator of intended use in unlawful activities (at [39]).

  • Special circumstances sufficient to justify a departure from the standard non-parole period may be established where the sentencing court finds the offender will require extended supervision on release to manage PTSD, substance use, gambling, and compliance with prohibition orders (at [100]-[101]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Firearms Act 1996, ss 51B(1); 65(1); 74(1)
- Crimes Act 1900, s s 193A; 193C(2)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, s 21A(2)

Cases
- R v Howard [2004] NSWCCA 348
- R v Mohamad [2005] NSWCCA 406
- Dionys v R [2011] NSWCCA 272
- Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247
- R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
- Tiknius v R [2011] NSWCCA 215
- R v Hasan (2005) 2 AC 467
- Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
- R v Botrus (No 6) [2021] NSWSC 199