Dixon v The King - [2025] NZCA 564

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA739/2024
[2025] NZCA 564

BETWEEN	JAXON DIXON Appellant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Hearing:	6 October 2025
Court:	Palmer, van Bohemen and Gault JJ
Counsel:	J C Hannam for Appellant N J Wynne for Respondent
Judgment:	24 October 2025 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

BThe appeal against sentence is dismissed.

___________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by van Bohemen J)

Jaxon Dixon appeals his conviction on the charge of arson following a trial by jury in the District Court at New Plymouth in September 2024.[1] He also appeals the imposition of a protection order made when he was sentenced by Judge G F Hikaka on 25 October 2024 on the arson charge, and on one charge each of breaching a protection order[2] and attempting to pervert the course of justice,[3] to which he had pleaded guilty.[4]
[1]Crimes Act 1961, s 267(1)(b). Maximum penalty 14 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Family Violence Act 2018, ss 90(c) and 112(1)(a). Maximum penalty three years’ imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act, ss 117(e) and 66(1). Maximum penalty seven years’ imprisonment.
[4]R v Dixon [2024] NZDC 25935.
Mr Dixon does not appeal the primary sentence of four years’ imprisonment for the three charges, or the reparation order of $3,620.70, made by Judge Hikaka.
Mr Dixon says the trial that led to his conviction on the arson charge was unfair on three grounds. The grounds are:
(a)propensity evidence was introduced by the victim in her evidence in chief about an earlier arson event that was not prosecuted or proven, which may have caused prejudice against Mr Dixon;
(b)in re-examination, the victim was asked why she thought Mr Dixon had been doing other things to harass her, which had the effect of introducing propensity evidence by speculation; and
(c)the prosecution case relied on cellphone polling data which contained several errors and called into question the accuracy of the evidence.
Mr Dixon also says there was an insufficient evidential basis for the Judge to conclude that the victim and Mr Dixon were in a close personal relationship, which was the basis on which the protection order was imposed.

Relevant background

In his sentencing notes, the Judge described the relationship between the victim and Mr Dixon as follows:[5]
[3] … The relationship between you and the victim of the charges began after a Tinder exchange in 2017. The complainant in the arson trial described the relationship as “very close”. … She said you were her “best friend”. It was a sexual relationship. It continued for about a year to a year and a half. When it ended, you were very upset. You threatened suicide and that appeared to be what led the complainant to cut off contact with you.
[4] That did not end your involvement with the complainant, however. That is shown by a number of convictions you accumulated. …
[5]R v Dixon, above n 4.
The Judge…

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 Dixon v The King

Details

AGLC: Dixon v The King [2025] NZCA 564
Case: [2025] NZCA 564
Decision Date: 24 October 2025 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dixon v The King involves an appeal by Jaxon Dixon against his conviction for arson and the imposition of a protection order. Dixon was also convicted of breaching a protection order and attempting to pervert the course of justice, to which he had pleaded guilty. The appeal was heard by Palmer, van Bohemen, and Gault JJ. The primary issues Dixon raised were: the introduction of propensity evidence regarding an earlier arson incident, the victim's speculation about Dixon's actions in re-examination, and the reliability of cellphone polling data. Dixon also contested the basis for the protection order, arguing there was insufficient evidence to show he was in a close personal relationship with the victim.

In dismissing the appeal against conviction, the Court found that the reference to the earlier arson was not prejudicial, as it was a response to a prosecutor's question and was not linked to Dixon. The prosecutor's description of Dixon as obsessed was deemed fair based on his prior conduct. Regarding the cellphone polling data, the anomalies were noted but did not undermine the reliability of the evidence pertinent to the arson incident. The combined evidence, including Dixon's car being near the victim's residence, the polling data, and Dixon's past behavior, sufficiently supported the jury's conviction.

Concerning the appeal against sentence, specifically the protection order, the Court held that the Judge had sufficient grounds to conclude that Dixon and the victim were in a close personal relationship, based on their intimate sexual relationship, the duration of their relationship, and the victim's sharing of intimate photos, which indicated a level of trust and confidence. Therefore, the protection order was appropriately imposed.

Orders