Legal Research
Cases
R v Dallison

R v Dallison

Case [2023] NZHC 976 28 April 2023

Attempted Murder

Use of a Firearm

Home Invasion

Motivation for Revenge

Guilty Plea

Previous Good Character

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CRI-2022-009-5239

CRI-2022-009-6143 [2023] NZHC 976

THE KING

v

IAN WILLIAM DALLISON

Hearing: 28 April 2023

Counsel:

C T Hislop for Crown

P L Borich KC for Defendant

Sentence:

28 April 2023

SENTENCING NOTES OF ISAC J

Introduction

[1] Mr Dallison, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to charges of:

(a)attempted murder;1

(b)wounding with intent to injure;2 and

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 173, maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
2 Section 188(2), maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v DALLISON [2023] NZHC 976 [28 April 2023]

(c)three representative charges of unlawful possession of pistols, restricted weapons and prohibited magazines.3

[2] The maximum penalty for attempted murder is 14 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the wounding and firearms charges are seven and three years’ imprisonment respectively.

[3] I wish to acknowledge the victims of your offending and their bravery. As you have heard, they continue to struggle with the physical and emotional harm that you caused them.

The offending

[4]I will begin by setting out the facts of your offending.4

[5] You were a tenant in commercial premises owned by one of the victims from which you operated a private surgery as an ophthalmologist.

[6] You became indebted to your landlord as a result of failing to pay rent and, as a result, he had been obliged to bring bankruptcy proceedings against you in the High Court. A hearing of the bankruptcy petition was scheduled to take place in the morning of 4 August 2022—the day of your offending.

[7] The day before the bankruptcy hearing—3 August—you used your personal laptop to access Google Maps. Over a period of four minutes, you researched the location of the victims’ home. Later the same evening and over a period of 20 minutes your cell phone polled in the suburb where they were living.

[8] You were then declared bankrupt in the morning of 4 August. In the early afternoon you again used Google Maps to locate the victims’ home. Then, at 6.45 pm, you loaded your car with nine firearms—all of which appear to have been pistols or

3 Arms Act 1983, s 50(1)(a) and (b), maximum penalty of three years’ imprisonment and a $4,000 fine, and s 50B, maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.
4 Previously Mr Dallison had taken issue with two aspects of the Crown summary of facts. But, having heard from his counsel, it has been unnecessary to conduct a separate hearing to determine them.

concealable weapons—and 167 rounds of ammunition. Several of the firearms you knew you could not lawfully possess. The firearms included a loaded Ruger .22 semi-automatic pistol, a Maglite torch shotgun with ammunition, two Mag pen guns, one with a silencer.

[9] You then set-off for the victims’ home. En route you stopped at a service station and then at a supermarket to purchase D-Cell batteries. The batteries were needed to make the Maglite…

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 Dallison

Details

AGLC: R v Dallison [2023] NZHC 976
Case: [2023] NZHC 976
Decision Date: 28 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ian William Dallison appeared before the High Court of New Zealand in Christchurch for sentencing following his guilty pleas to attempted murder, wounding with intent to injure, and three charges of unlawful possession of firearms. The court heard that Dallison, a former ophthalmologist, had meticulously planned the attack on his former landlord and the landlord's partner, driven by financial grievances and bankruptcy proceedings. Dallison armed himself with multiple firearms and ammunition before invading the victims' home, resulting in significant injuries to both victims.

The court identified several legal issues, including determining the appropriate starting point for sentencing and making necessary adjustments based on Dallison's personal circumstances. The court considered the high degree of premeditation, the home invasion, the use of a firearm, and the vulnerability of the victims as serious aggravating factors. After reviewing relevant case law, the court set a starting point of 10.5 years' imprisonment. The court then applied discounts for Dallison's early guilty plea and his previous good character, resulting in a total discount of 35%. Given Dallison's age and the absence of any relevant previous convictions, the court decided against imposing a minimum non-parole period.

The court sentenced Dallison to six years and 10 months' imprisonment for attempted murder, two years' imprisonment for wounding with intent to injure, and 12 months' imprisonment for each firearms charge, with all sentences running concurrently. The court also ordered the destruction of the firearms and ammunition involved in the offence. Dallison's total maximum sentence is six years and 10 months' imprisonment.

Orders