R v Dixon - [1999] QCA 251

99.251

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P PINCUS JA THOMAS JA

CA No 142 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

JASON MICHAEL LESLIE DIXON

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 07/07/99
070799 T7/RB28 M/T COA147/99
THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted of child
stealing, namely the forcible taking away of a seven
year old child with intent to deprive her parents of her
possession. He seeks leave to appeal against a sentence
of five years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for
the offence is seven years.

The applicant is 27 years old and has a minor criminal history consisting of two possessions of a pipe and some other minor offences, none of which has attracted more than a fine.

On the evening in question at about 7 o'clock a seven- year-old girl was playing on the footpath in a shopping area in Bundaberg with her 10-year-old brother. Their father had left them briefly in order to collect his wife from a chiropractor's office. At that stage there were no other cars about.

The applicant drove up to where the little girl was playing, moved quickly out of his car and grabbed her. He put his hand over her mouth, told her to shut-up and not to scream and pointed towards his car. Notwithstanding his threat she screamed and struggled. Her father heard her screams and calls for help from her brother. He saw the applicant and his daughter in the passenger seat of the applicant's car apparently still struggling. He punched the applicant and the girl escaped.

070799 T7/RB28 M/T COA147/99
The applicant, however, persuaded the father that
another man had in fact attacked the girl and that he
was only helping to save her. He later drove off.
Fortunately the girl's father took the number of his
car. Various witnesses had seen the applicant grab the
girl and drag her struggling and screaming into his car.

The police were notified but four weeks elapsed before the applicant was spoken to by the police. When apprehended he denied the offence, claiming that he had merely intervened to help the girl.

After he was charged he initially claimed to have no recollection of the offence saying to a psychiatrist that he had suffered a blackout as the result of excessive intake of drugs. However, it would seem quite clear that there was some sexual motivation behind the abduction despite these initial claims. He subsequently told a psychologist, Mr John, that before the event he had been reading something like Penthouse magazines and had started to feel lonely. He said:

"I thought I'd head off to the van ... started driving home ... a little bit sexually aroused ... wanted to be with someone ... That's when I came across the girl in the street ... No prior thoughts ... I wasn't going to hurt anyone ... She would have been okay ... I only wanted someone to talk to ..."

Mr John noted that he was not prepared to acknowledge responsibility or explain his actions and expressed…

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 [1999] QCA 251
Case: [1999] QCA 251
Decision Date: 7/07/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Jason Michael Leslie Dixon, the applicant was convicted of child stealing and sentenced to five years' imprisonment. The court of appeal was asked to review the sentence, which was at the upper end of the maximum penalty of seven years for the offence. The applicant, who has a minor criminal history, abducted a seven-year-old girl in a shopping area, intending to sexually exploit her. Despite the girl's struggles and screams, the applicant managed to escape with her until the girl's father intervened. The applicant later claimed that he did not remember the incident due to drug intoxication, but this was deemed unconvincing by the court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of five years' imprisonment was excessive, given the applicant's early guilty plea and other mitigating factors. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the potential risk of sexual assault, and the significant impact on the victim and her family. The court also took into account the applicant's history of drug abuse, his inability to explain his actions, and the risk of re-offending. Despite these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate, considering the need for general deterrence and the protection of society.

The court found that the sentence of five years' imprisonment was not excessive, as it was necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the potential risk to the community. The court emphasised the importance of protecting children from such crimes and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders