Jonathan Dixon v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 82/2014
[2014] NZSC 151

BETWEEN	JONATHAN DIXON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	McGrath, William Young and Glazebrook JJ
Counsel:	B J Hunt for Applicant D J Boldt for Respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2014

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal erred when it dismissed the appeal.

____________________________________________________________________

The approved question encompasses whether the Court of Appeal was correct to hold that the CCTV files are not property, as well as the question of whether the Court of Appeal should have used s 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 to substitute a conviction for accessing a computer system and thereby dishonestly and without claim of right obtaining a benefit.[1]
[1]Dixon v R [2014] NZCA 329, [2014] 3 NZLR 504 (Harrison, Wild and French JJ).
Mr Dixon also sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the submissions filed by Mr Dixon after the Court of Appeal hearing were “outside the scope of the leave granted” and that they did not individually or collectively justify quashing the conviction.[2]
[2]At [61].
The question for the appeal also encompasses any specific matters raised in those submissions filed after the Court of Appeal hearing which Mr Dixon argues should have led to his appeal being allowed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for the Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the case of Jonathan Dixon versus The Queen was heard and decided. The applicant, Jonathan Dixon, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which dismissed his appeal against his conviction for accessing a computer system without authority. The Court of Appeal had previously held that the CCTV files were not property, and declined to substitute the conviction under section 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. Additionally, the Court of Appeal dismissed submissions filed by Mr Dixon after the hearing as being outside the scope of the leave granted. Mr Dixon sought leave to appeal against these decisions.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the Court of Appeal was correct in holding that the CCTV files were not property, and whether the Court of Appeal should have used section 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 to substitute a conviction for accessing a computer system and thereby dishonestly and without claim of right obtaining a benefit. The court was also required to consider any specific matters raised in the submissions filed by Mr Dixon after the Court of Appeal hearing which he argued should have led to his appeal being allowed.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and approved the question of whether the Court of Appeal was correct to dismiss the appeal. The court found that the CCTV files were not property, and that the Court of Appeal was correct to decline to substitute the conviction under section 386(2) of the Crimes Act 1961. The court also found that the submissions filed by Mr Dixon after the Court of Appeal hearing did not individually or collectively justify quashing the conviction. The court therefore dismissed the appeal.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, the approved question was set out, and the appeal was dismissed. The conviction of the applicant was upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established