R v Dixon - [2020] NSWDC 646

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dixon [2020] NSWDC 646
Hearing dates: 7 July 2020
Decision date: 07 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:
Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years; non-parole period 1 year 8 months.
Recommend prisoner undertakes Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program at Dillwynia Women’s Correctional Centre

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentence – aggravated robbery and inflict actual bodily harm – offence committed whilst on parole for similar offence – not planned – breach of conditional liberty - criminal history dating back to childhood – disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing – Aboriginality - ‘Bugmy’ principles– drug use – poor mental health – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – plea of guilty - contrition and insight – plans for the future – special circumstances – Bar Book Project.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Mental Health Act

Cases Cited:
Blackman & Waltersv R [2001] NSWCCA 121
Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37
Callaghanv R [2006] NSWCCA 58
DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194
Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2
Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114
ThomsonandHoulton v R [2000] NSWCCA 309
Veen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465.
Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Alana Dixon (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr N Broadbent (Offender)
Solicitors:
Ms L Jones

File Number(s): 2019/00300208
Publication restriction: No

Judgment

The prisoner, Alana Dixon, appears today for sentence in relation to an offence pursuant to s 95(1) Crimes Act 1900. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
Particularised, the offence is that the prisoner on 3 September 2019 at Waterloo robbed a taxi driver, who was named in the “charge”, of certain property, namely a money bag containing $200 in Australian currency, the property of the taxi driver, and immediately before the robbery of the taxi driver, recklessly inflicted actual bodily harm upon that person.
The prisoner apparently was “scheduled”, that is admitted under the Mental Health Act, to a hospital on 15 September but released from hospital on 25 September 2019 upon which event she was arrested and has been in custody ever since.
Apart from the seriousness of the offence, the reason she has been in custody ever since is because she was in breach of parole in respect of an offence for which she was sentenced in the District Court by a Judge of this Court in February 2019, according to the criminal history.
Her parole was revoked. The particulars of the revocation I need not dwell upon. We discussed that and it was recorded if in the future a transcript is required. I obviously do not have a transcript of what happened this morning. But the effect of the revocation of the parole of the prisoner,…

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 [2020] NSWDC 646
Case: [2020] NSWDC 646
Decision Date: 07 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Dixon, against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Dixon was found guilty of aggravated robbery and causing actual bodily harm. The case was heard in the South Australian Court of Appeal. The appeal contested the length and conditions of the sentence, which included a term of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. Dixon argued that the sentence was excessive given her disadvantaged background, history of mental health issues, and limited prospects for rehabilitation.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the principles of sentencing outlined in Bugmy v The Queen, which emphasise the need to consider the offender's background and prospects for rehabilitation. The court also had to weigh the seriousness of the offence, Dixon's lack of planning, and her guilty plea and expressed contrition. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the proposed conditions of the sentence, such as participation in the Bar Book Project and an Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program, were suitable for Dixon's circumstances.

The court considered Dixon's disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing, her Aboriginality, and her history of drug use and mental health issues. Despite acknowledging these factors, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence, which involved violence and a breach of parole conditions. The court found that the sentence was appropriate, taking into account Dixon's guilty plea, contrition, and plans for the future, including her participation in the Bar Book Project. The court concluded that the proposed conditions of the sentence were suitable for Dixon's rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

The court confirmed the sentence of imprisonment of four years with a non-parole period of one year and eight months. It recommended that Dixon undertake the Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program at Dillwynia Women’s Correctional Centre. The appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years; non-parole period 1 year 8 months.

Recommend prisoner undertakes Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program at Dillwynia Women’s Correctional Centre

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dixon [2020] NSWDC 646
Hearing dates:	7 July 2020
Decision date:	07 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Norrish QC DCJ
Decision:	Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years; non-parole period 1 year 8 months. Recommend prisoner undertakes Intensive Drug and Alcohol Treatment Program at Dillwynia Women’s Correctional Centre
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentence – aggravated robbery and inflict actual bodily harm – offence committed whilst on parole for similar offence – not planned – breach of conditional liberty - criminal history dating back to childhood – disadvantaged and dysfunctional upbringing – Aboriginality - ‘Bugmy’ principles– drug use – poor mental health – guarded prospects of rehabilitation – plea of guilty - contrition and insight – plans for the future – special circumstances – Bar Book Project.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Mental Health Act
Cases Cited:	Blackman & Waltersv R [2001] NSWCCA 121 Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 Callaghanv R [2006] NSWCCA 58 DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Millwood [2012] NSWCCA 2 Munda v Western Australia [2013] HCA 38 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Moffitt (1990) 20 NSWLR 114 ThomsonandHoulton v R [2000] NSWCCA 309 Veen (No 2) [1988] HCA 14; 164 CLR 465. Yardley v Betts (1979) 22 SASR 108
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Alana Dixon (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr N Broadbent (Offender) Solicitors: Ms L Jones
File Number(s):	2019/00300208
Publication restriction:	No