Ontario Appeal Court insists Nigerian offender must serve 2 years jail term

Olufemi Shodunke (Chief)

A Nigerian based in Canada, Justin Aghayere Omoragbon, has failed in his bid to reduce the jail term imposed on him by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, having been sentenced to two years and two months following his conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling-house.

Penpushing reports that displeased with the judgment, Omoragbon, who had previously been convicted for five firearms offences, four drug offences (possession for the purpose of trafficking), and single convictions for flight from police and possession of the proceeds of crime, headed to the Court of Appeal of Ontario, claiming that he should be sentenced to one-and-half-year jail term.

The court record in R. v. Omoragbon, 2025 ONCA 481 (CanLII), said he argued that the sentencing judge erred in not accepting the sentence of 18 months proposed by the Crown and subsequently adopted by the defence.

Penpushing further reports that, but the appellate court, presided over by the trio of justices S. Gomery, J. Dawe, and L. Madsen rejected Omoragbon’s plea that it was not a case where the Crown and the defence agreed to make a joint submission on sentence in exchange for a guilty plea

“This was not a case where the Crown and the defence agreed to make a joint submission on sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. The sentencing hearing was contested’, the record stated.

‘During the Crown’s submissions, the sentencing judge gave notice that he was considering a higher sentence than the 18 months sought by the Crown. Following the completion of the Crown’s submissions, and a break, trial counsel for the first time advised that the appellant agreed with the sentence sought by the Crown’, it added

Penpushing also reports that in its decision, the court dismissed Omoragbon’s argument that the sentencing judge ignored two mitigating factors: a guilty plea that relieved the victims of the break and enter from having to testify, and the appellant’s mental health diagnosis, as communicated verbally to trial counsel by the appellant’s parole officer.

“We disagree. The sentencing judge acknowledged that the appellant pled guilty but found that this had little weight because of its timing and the strength of the case against him. He was entitled not to give weight to trial counsel’s submissions about the appellant’s mental health, given the lack of any evidentiary foundation for them’, the court added

Penpushing reports that court in the same vein, dismissed the accused claim of bias against the presiding judge, emphasizing that there was no evidence of bias or an appearance of bias on the part of the sentencing judge.

“There was no evidence of bias or an appearance of bias on the part of the sentencing judge. He explained why he concluded that a penitentiary sentence was required to achieve the primary sentencing goals of deterrence and denunciation in the circumstances of this case, having regard in particular to the seriousness of the offence and the appellant’s lengthy criminal record. We do not see any error that would justify intervention by this court’, it declared

Penpushing further reports that in the six-paragraph judgement, the court finally decided that the appellant is accordingly granted leave to appeal his sentence but the appeal is dismissed.

FOOTNOTE: You want to share story with us? You want to advertise with us? You need publicity for product, or service, or   event? Contact us on WhatsApp +2348073463653 or email [email protected]