R v Dixon - [2022] QCA 167

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dixon [2022] QCA 167

PARTIES:

R
v
DIXON, Anthony Malcolm
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 335 of 2021
DC No 80 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 17 November 2021; Date of Sentence: 18 November 2021 (Clarke DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

2 September 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 August 2022

JUDGES:

Mullins P and McMurdo and Bond JJA

ORDERS:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where a prior dispute existed between one of the complainants and the appellant – whether the jury should not have been persuaded by the evidence of the complainants due to inconsistences in their evidence – where there was no physical evidence placing the appellant at the residence – whether the verdicts were unreasonable

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where the trial judge reminded the prosecutor to ask one of the complainants whether he consented to the home invasion or being assaulted – where the appellant submits this judicial interference occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge’s interference in the questioning of the complainant denied the appellant the chance to make a no case submission and caused a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where the appellant was sentenced for the most serious offence to four years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after serving two years in custody for an operational period of five years – where the trial judge took into consideration that the appellant denied criminal responsibility, the complainants were seriously injured, the appellant’s lack of history and his age of 62 years…

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 R v Dixon

Details

AGLC: R v Dixon [2022] QCA 167
Case: [2022] QCA 167
Decision Date: 2 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dixon, the appellant, Dixon, appealed against his conviction for one count of burglary and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm. The jury found Dixon guilty of these charges based on the prosecution's case that he counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit the offences. The central issue in this appeal was whether the jury's verdict was unreasonable or insupportable given the evidence presented. A secondary issue was whether judicial interference in the questioning of a complainant caused a miscarriage of justice. Additionally, Dixon sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the evidence and found no basis to conclude that the verdict was unreasonable. There were inconsistencies in the complainants' evidence, but the jury was entitled to assess the credibility of the witnesses and determine their reliability. The court noted that there was no physical evidence placing Dixon at the scene, but the complainants' accounts of the events were consistent and detailed. The court also rejected Dixon's claim that the trial judge's intervention caused a miscarriage of justice, finding that it did not unduly influence the proceedings or the verdict. Regarding the sentence, the court held that it was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the seriousness of the offences, the injuries sustained by the complainants, and Dixon's denial of criminal responsibility.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction and refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal against conviction was dismissed because the court found no fault with the jury's verdict. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused as the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

There are two grounds relied on to appeal against the conviction: first, the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and, second, that the learned trial judge’s interference in the questioning of the complainant Mr Campbell denied Mr Dixon the chance to make a no case submission at the close of the prosecution case. Mr Dixon applies for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive. Although Mr Dixon was represented by lawyers at the trial, he appears for himself on the appeal and sentence leave application.Summary of the evidence at the trial Mr Willington’s evidence in chief included the following. Mr Dixon and Mr Willington had known each other for a period of years and at some stages Mr Willington had let Mr Dixon stay at his townhouse. In the late afternoon of 5 August 2020 Mr Willington went to a Sports Club and met up there with his son Mr Campbell. In the months leading up to August 2020, Mr Willington had sold Mr Dixon a car. Mr Willington had been told by other people that Mr Dixon was saying that he had been sold a “lemon”. Mr Willington confronted Mr Dixon over that at the club, telling him that if he had something to say, to say it to his face. Mr Willington was asked to leave the club. Mr Willington heard Mr Dixon on the phone “talking to someone about getting somebody to do a job on [him]”. A photograph of Mr Willington and Mr Dixon at the club on that evening was tendered as exhibit 1. The photograph showed both parties at high tables with Mr Dixon standing at one table that was next to the table at which Mr Willington and Mr Campbell were seated. Mr Willington returned home, watched television and went to bed a bit after 9.00 pm. He slept downstairs and his son was upstairs. He then heard a bang on the back glass sliding door. As he headed towards the door, he realised that it was Mr Dixon and saw him running past the kitchen window and out the front gate. He returned to go back to sleep, but about 10 minutes later there was a bang on the front door. Mr Willington got up and looked out. He opened the wooden door, as the security screen door was locked. There were three men in balaclavas and one of them said that Mr Willington had “ripped” his father off, selling him a dud car and Mr Willington responded “Lance, take your balaclava off” as he recognised the voice of the man who spoke as Mr Dixon’s son, Lance Dixon, whom he had also known for a period of time. The three men “ripped” the screen door open. They had a baton, sticks and a knife and they attacked Mr Willington until he blacked out. (The injuries sustained by Mr Willington were the subject of admissions.) Mr Willington did not consent to any person assaulting him on that occasion or entering his house. Mr Willington’s evidence in cross-examination included the following. Mr Willington had raised his voice in his exchange with Mr Dixon at the club. He did hear Mr Dixon on the phone saying that someone needed to come and sort out Mr Willington.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Dixon [2022] QCA 167
PARTIES:	R v DIXON, Anthony Malcolm (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 335 of 2021 DC No 80 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Conviction: 17 November 2021; Date of Sentence: 18 November 2021 (Clarke DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	2 September 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 August 2022
JUDGES:	Mullins P and McMurdo and Bond JJA
ORDERS:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where a prior dispute existed between one of the complainants and the appellant – whether the jury should not have been persuaded by the evidence of the complainants due to inconsistences in their evidence – where there was no physical evidence placing the appellant at the residence – whether the verdicts were unreasonable CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERALLY – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where the trial judge reminded the prosecutor to ask one of the complainants whether he consented to the home invasion or being assaulted – where the appellant submits this judicial interference occasioned a miscarriage of justice – whether the trial judge’s interference in the questioning of the complainant denied the appellant the chance to make a no case submission and caused a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted of one count of burglary, by breaking, in the night, with violence, while armed, in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm, while armed, in company – where the prosecution case at trial was that the appellant counselled and/or procured the co-defendants to commit each of the offences – where the appellant was sentenced for the most serious offence to four years’ imprisonment, to be suspended after serving two years in custody for an operational period of five years – where the trial judge took into consideration that the appellant denied criminal responsibility, the complainants were seriously injured, the appellant’s lack of history and his age of 62 years…