Dixon v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 41

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dixon v R [2025] NSWCCA 41
Hearing dates: 19 February 2025
Date of orders: 26 March 2025
Decision date: 26 March 2025
Before: Davies J at [1]
Chen J at [2]
Sweeney J at [3]
Decision:
1. Extend time to file the Notice of Appeal until 13 June 2024.
2. Grant leave to appeal.
3. Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Offences of sexual intercourse with children outside Australia and possessing child abuse material – Whether the sentencing process miscarried – Whether the sentencing judge erred in her consideration of the age of the victims – Whether the sentencing judge mistook the statutory age limit of an offence provision – Whether the sentencing judge erred in incorrectly stating an offence provision – No point of principle

Legislation Cited:
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.1, 272.8, 272.20, 273.5, 473.1, 474.22, 474.22A
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A

Cases Cited:
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
DH v R [2019] NSWCCA 128
Hurkmans v R [2024] NSWCCA 126
Kentwell v the Queen (2014) 252 CLR 60; [2014] HCA 37
Minehan v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 24; [2010] NSWCCA 140
R v Delzotto (2022) 298 A Crim A 483; [2022] NSWCCA 117
R v Hutchinson [2018] NSWCCA 152
Weber v R [2020] NSWCCA 103
Wu v R [2016] NSWCCA 96
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4
ZZ v R [2019] NSWCCA 286

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Collen Teoxon Dixon (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
D Mulligan (Applicant)
A Chhabra / J Fennel (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Criminal Defence Lawyers Australia (Applicant)
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/193413
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Citation:

[2023] NSWDC 109

Date of Decision:

21 April 2023

Before:

Noman SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2021/193413

JUDGMENT

DAVIES J: I agree with Sweeney J.
CHEN J: I agree with Sweeney J.
SWEENEY J: Collen Teoxon Dixon, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed upon him by Judge Noman SC in the District Court on 21 April 2023.
He requires an extension of time, his solicitors having filed a Notice of Appeal almost 2 months after the expiration of his Notice of Intention to Appeal. His solicitor explained that the delay was in part due to the applicant’s previous solicitors having received advice that there was no merit in an appeal. The Crown does not oppose an extension of time.
The applicant was sentenced for 27 offences to which he had pleaded guilty in the Local Court. The offences were:

one offence of possessing child abuse material (Sequence 1). That is an offence contrary to s 474.22A(1) of…

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 Dixon v The King

Details

AGLC: Dixon v The King [2025] NSWCCA 41
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 41
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dixon v The King, the appellant, Dixon, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed after he was convicted of sexual intercourse with children outside Australia and possessing child abuse material. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing process miscarried due to several alleged errors made by the sentencing judge during the sentencing process.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge had erred in her consideration of the age of the victims, as well as whether she had mistakenly interpreted the statutory age limit of an offence provision. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentencing judge had erred by incorrectly stating an offence provision during the sentencing process. Upon considering these issues, the court found that while the sentencing judge had indeed made some errors, they did not amount to a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, the court concluded that there was no point of principle of general importance arising from the case.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed on Dixon was upheld. The High Court did not grant leave to appeal, and therefore no further proceedings regarding the sentence would be entertained. This decision reinforced the importance of accurate and careful consideration of relevant factors in the sentencing process, while also acknowledging that not all errors will necessarily lead to the appeal being successful.

Orders