R v Dixon

Case [2024] NSWDC 674


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dixon [2024] NSWDC 674
Hearing dates: 30-31 October 2024
Date of orders: 31 October 2024
Decision date: 31 October 2024
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

See par [64].

Catchwords:

CRIME – s21(2) CPA Application for severance of indictment into 5 different trials – 9 counts, including counts of larceny, break and enters and a take and drive conveyance without consent – Granted in part.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986, s 21.

Indictment Act 1915 (UK).

Cases Cited:

Ludlow v The Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1971] AC 29; [1970] 1 All England Reports 567.

Billings v R [2012] NSWCCA 33 at [14]-[18].

Phillips v R [2006] HCA 4; (2006) 225 CLR 303.

Mac v R [2014] NSWCCA 24.

Texts Cited:

Nil.

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Accused – Justin Dixon
Representation:

Counsel:
Crown – Ms Brown, A.
Accused – Mr Renard, E.

Solicitors:
Crown – Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW)
Accused – Mayfair Lawyers
File Number(s): 2023/00449937
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Yesterday, the accused, Justin Dixon, was arraigned on an indictment, which contains nine Counts.

  2. Count 1 is an allegation that on 5 September 2023, the accused broke and entered the dwelling house of ZT at Adelong Close, at Wakeley, and did steal a silver Subaru Impreza, registered number YBJ 96T, the breaking and entering being in circumstances of aggravation, namely that he knew there was a person or persons present in the said dwelling house.

  3. Count 2 in the indictment is in the alternative to Count 1, and is an allegation of taking without the consent of ZT the said Subaru Impreza.

  4. Count 3 is an allegation that on 11 September 2023, the accused broke and entered the dwelling house of JF, at McIver Avenue in Middleton Grange and committed a serious indictable offence therein, namely damaged property, being the sliding glass door of the property in question. That is also alleged to be in circumstances of aggravation, namely that the accused was in company.

  5. Count 4 in the indictment is that on 11 September 2023, shortly after the event at Middleton Grange, the accused did break and enter the dwelling house of AB, at Rosebank Avenue, Elizabeth Hills, and committed a serious indictable offence therein, namely larceny of a handbag and keys, in circumstances of aggravation, that he was in company.

  6. Count 5 is an allegation of stealing a motor vehicle, being a Land Rover Velar, registered number EYS 54U, the property of AB.

  7. Count 6 is an allegation that, again on 11 September 2023, at Elizabeth Hills, the accused did steal a Yamaha PW50 mini dirt bike, the property of AB. Both those motor vehicles were parked on or near the property of AB at Elizabeth Hills.

  8. Count 7 alleges that on 14 September 2023, at Green Valley, the accused attempted to break and enter the dwelling house of RS at San Cristobal Drive,…

Continue reading R v Dixon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dixon [2024] NSWDC 674
Case
[2024] NSWDC 674
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dixon involved the defendant facing multiple charges, including larceny, break and enters, and a take and drive conveyance without consent. The defendant applied for the severance of the indictment into five separate trials. The application was heard in the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining the merits of the application under section 21(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the indictment should be severed to allow for separate trials. The court considered whether the defendant's right to a fair trial was being prejudiced by the joinder of the charges. The court also assessed whether the charges were so closely related that they should be tried together.

The court found that the charges were not so closely related as to necessitate a joint trial. It was concluded that the evidence in relation to some of the charges was distinct and could be better presented separately. The court recognised that a fair trial could be achieved through separate trials, and therefore granted the application for severance in part. The court ordered that certain counts should be tried separately, while others could be tried jointly.

In summary, the court granted the application for severance in part, ordering that five counts be tried separately while allowing for some counts to be tried jointly. The reasoning was based on the distinct nature of some of the evidence and the potential for a fair trial through separate proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

See par [64].

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.