Dixon v The Queen - [2013] NZCA 454

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA236/2013
[2013] NZCA 454

BETWEEN	CLAYTON WILLIAM DIXON Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	17 September 2013
Court:	Miller, Cooper and Lang JJ
Counsel:	D G Slater for Appellant B D Tantrum for Respondent
Judgment:	30 September 2013 at 2.15 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The appeal against sentence is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Cooper J)

The appellant, Mr Dixon, pleaded guilty to two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and a charge of aggravated burglary.
On 4 April 2013 he was sentenced by Judge Phillips in the District Court at Invercargill to concurrent terms of imprisonment of nine years and six months on one of the wounding charges, six years on the other and four years on the charge of aggravated burglary.[1] The Judge ordered that the appellant serve a minimum term of six years.
[1]R v Dixon DC Invercargill CRI-2012-025-002797, 4 April 2013.
He now appeals against that sentence.

The facts

In his sentencing the Judge described the facts as “extremely disturbing”.[2] He recorded that at about 10.30 pm on 25 October 2012 the female victim, Ms Lewis, was at home at her Bluff address. Also present in the house were her four young children, two of whom were children of the appellant. Also there was her partner, Mr Rima, who was the second victim of the attack. They had recently commenced a relationship. Mr Rima at one stage went out to the conservatory of the house, intending to have a cigarette. When he was there, the appellant struck him over the head with an axe. Mr Rima staggered backwards into the living area of the house when the appellant again struck him on the head with the axe, knocking him to the ground. Mr Rima was incapable of any resistance.
[2]At [2].
Ms Lewis saw what was happening to Mr Rima. She screamed at the appellant to stop. She hastened to the aid of Mr Rima as he was lying on the ground, put her arms out over him and also ended up on the floor. At that point the appellant began to strike her with the axe about her head. The Judge recorded that the number of times that occurred was unknown, but it was certainly more than twice. The appellant also struck her about the hand with the axe, breaking the hand in “numerous places”. The appellant returned to stand over Mr Rima, when an associate of Ms Lewis arrived and the appellant ran away.
The police located the appellant and he made a confession about how the events had unfolded. The Judge recorded:[3]
You said you had walked down to see your ex partner. You had seen the male present in the house which had made you angry and after a short time outside you then went into a garden shed (purposely in my view) and you took an axe that you knew was in that shed.…

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 Queen

Details

AGLC: Dixon v The Queen [2013] NZCA 454
Case: [2013] NZCA 454
Decision Date: 30 September 2013 at 2.15 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Clayton William Dixon appealed against his sentence for two charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and a charge of aggravated burglary. Dixon was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment totaling 19 years and six months. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed by Miller, Cooper, and Lang JJ.

The legal issues involved whether the starting point and the minimum term of the sentence were appropriate. Dixon's counsel argued that the starting point was too high, given the brain injury was not clinically significant, and the minimum term was excessive, being 63% of the sentence. The Court found that the starting point and minimum term were justified by the extreme violence and premeditation of the attack, the serious injuries sustained by both victims, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The Court of Appeal held that the starting point of 12 years was within the appropriate range for such a severe case and the sentence of nine years and six months was not excessive. The minimum term of six years was also justified by the gravity of the offending and the need for deterrence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders