R v Dixon - [2019] QCA 224

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dixon [2019] QCA 224

PARTIES:

R
v
DIXON, Milan Joseph John
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 219 of 2017
DC No 84 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
Miscellaneous Applications – Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 August 2017; Date of Sentence: 23 August 2017 (Shanahan DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

22 October 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Morrison JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to adduce further evidence refused.

2.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

3.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where it was alleged that the appellant visited the witness and made threats to him – where evidence was adduced at trial of a telephone conversation between the appellant and his son in which the son asked the appellant to visit the witness in order to influence the latter’s testimony – where the appellant alleged on appeal that the witness was not trustworthy or reliable and had a criminal record – where the appellant sought to rely upon new evidence contained in affidavits – whether the new evidence, combined with the evidence at trial, shows the appellant to be innocent or raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt – whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where the appellant alleged on appeal that his legal representatives failed to follow his instructions because his request to adduce evidence from others was ignored and he was directed that he was not going to give evidence – whether it was incompetent for the appellant’s legal representatives to have not followed the appellant’s instructions – whether the appellant’s prospects of acquittal were harmed as a result

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after two months for an operational period of 12 months for his offending – where the appellant is a New Zealand citizen and his visa was cancelled as a result of his sentence…

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 [2019] QCA 224
Case: [2019] QCA 224
Decision Date: 22 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dixon involved the appellant who was found guilty of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation. The witness had provided a statement against the appellant’s son. The appellant alleged that his legal representatives failed to follow his instructions, leading to an ineffective defence. Additionally, the appellant contested the sentence imposed, claiming it was unduly harsh given his immigration status. The appeal raised several issues, including whether the trial verdict was unreasonable, whether the defence counsel's conduct prejudiced the appellant, and whether the sentence was appropriate.

The court addressed the question of whether the verdict was unreasonable or insupportable, considering the new evidence provided by the appellant. It was determined that the new evidence, when combined with the evidence presented at trial, did not show the appellant to be innocent or raise a reasonable doubt about his guilt. The jury's conclusion that the appellant was guilty beyond reasonable doubt was deemed sustainable. Furthermore, the court examined whether the defence counsel's failure to follow the appellant’s instructions constituted incompetence. It found that while there were shortcomings in the defence's conduct, these did not prejudice the appellant’s prospects of acquittal to the extent that a miscarriage of justice occurred.

The court also considered the appellant's contention regarding the sentence, specifically whether the sentence was unduly harsh and whether the counsel's failure to address relevant immigration factors prejudiced the appellant. The court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the appellant had not demonstrated that his counsel’s neglect significantly impacted the sentencing outcome. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The final orders of the court were that leave to adduce further evidence was refused, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to adduce further evidence refused.

2. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

3. 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

Full text does not contain this section.

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 [2019] QCA 224
PARTIES:	R v DIXON, Milan Joseph John (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 219 of 2017 DC No 84 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence Miscellaneous Applications – Criminal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 22 August 2017; Date of Sentence: 23 August 2017 (Shanahan DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	22 October 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Morrison JJA
ORDERS:	1. Leave to adduce further evidence refused. 2. Appeal against conviction dismissed. 3. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where it was alleged that the appellant visited the witness and made threats to him – where evidence was adduced at trial of a telephone conversation between the appellant and his son in which the son asked the appellant to visit the witness in order to influence the latter’s testimony – where the appellant alleged on appeal that the witness was not trustworthy or reliable and had a criminal record – where the appellant sought to rely upon new evidence contained in affidavits – whether the new evidence, combined with the evidence at trial, shows the appellant to be innocent or raises a reasonable doubt as to his guilt – whether, upon the whole of the evidence, it was open to the jury to have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – CONDUCT OF DEFENCE COUNSEL – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where the appellant alleged on appeal that his legal representatives failed to follow his instructions because his request to adduce evidence from others was ignored and he was directed that he was not going to give evidence – whether it was incompetent for the appellant’s legal representatives to have not followed the appellant’s instructions – whether the appellant’s prospects of acquittal were harmed as a result CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant was found guilty after trial of causing a detriment to a witness for the purpose of retaliation because the witness provided a statement against the appellant’s son – where the appellant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, suspended after two months for an operational period of 12 months for his offending – where the appellant is a New Zealand citizen and his visa was cancelled as a result of his sentence…