For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF NEW TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST IS PERMITTED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA201/05 [2007] NZCA 398
THE QUEEN
v
ANTONIE RONNIE DIXON
Hearing: 24 July 2007
Court: Chambers, Keane and MacKenzie JJ
Counsel: B J Hart, G J King, and A J Trenwith for Appellant
S J E Moore and E C Finlayson-Davis for Crown
Judgment: 7 September 2007 at 11 am
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
A The appeal is allowed.
B All convictions are quashed.
CA new trial is ordered on all counts on which the appellant was convicted.
R V DIXON CA CA201/05 7 September 2007
DAn order is made that the reasons for judgment are not to be published in the news media or on the internet or in any other publicly accessible database until final disposition of the new trial. Publication in a law report or a law digest is, however, permitted.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Chambers J)
Table of Contents
Para No
An 11 hour reign of terror [1] Issues on the appeal [14] Was the summing up correct in its treatment of the second limb
of the insanity defence? [19]
Was the summing up correct in how it dealt with intoxication? [38] Should manslaughter have been left to the jury? [51] Conclusion [54]
An 11 hour reign of terror
[1] Between 7 pm on 21 January 2003 and 6 o’clock the next morning, Tony Dixon, the appellant, unleashed a reign of terror, which left one person dead and a number of others severely injured and traumatised. There was and is no dispute the terrible events about to be summarised occurred. The question at trial was what led Mr Dixon to act as he did.
[2] The events began in the converted shed in which Mr Dixon was living at Pipiroa, a small farming settlement on the Hauraki Plains. Mr Dixon attacked his current partner, Renee Gunbie, and a former partner, Simonne Butler, who was visiting, with a samurai sword. The injuries to Ms Gunbie were dreadful: her right hand was completely severed and in addition she received a fracture to her skull, injuries on the side of her head, including the removal of scalp and hair, very deep gashes to her neck and shoulders, and a broken left arm. Ms Butler suffered a partially severed left arm, a virtually severed right arm, and deep gash wounds on her
left arm and right shoulder. Both women were within minutes of death at the time they were attended to by ambulance and emergency services.
[3] Following this attack, Mr Dixon and a friend, Roger Reekers, who had been present in the shed at the time of the attack, drove off at speed to Hamilton. Both men smoked methamphetamine, a class A controlled…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Dixon [2007] NZCA 398
Case
[2007] NZCA 398
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal by Antonie Ronnie Dixon against his convictions and sentence was heard by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on 24 July 2007. Dixon had been found guilty of murdering James Te Aute, and of various other charges, following a violent 11-hour spree in January 2003. Dixon had attacked two women with a sword, shot Te Aute at close range, and held a man hostage. The defence of insanity had been run at trial, and issues relating to intoxication had arisen. Dixon appealed against his convictions and sentence, arguing there were errors in the summing up by the trial judge. The court allowed the appeal, quashed all convictions and ordered a new trial. The reasons for judgment were not to be published in the news media or on the internet or any other publicly accessible database until final disposition of the new trial, but could be published in a law report or digest.
The court considered three issues on the appeal. Firstly, the court found the summing up was incorrect in its treatment of the second limb of the insanity defence. The summing up had directed the jury to consider whether Dixon was incapable of understanding right and wrong because of a disease of the mind. However, the correct test was whether Dixon did not know, because of a disease of the mind, that what he was doing was morally wrong. Secondly, the court found the summing up was incorrect in how it dealt with intoxication. Intoxication could be relevant to issues other than intent, such as knowledge of consequences and recklessness. Thirdly, the court found manslaughter should have been left to the jury. Intoxication, either on its own or in combination with Dixon's mental disorder, could have rendered him incapable of assessing the consequences of his actions. The combination of errors meant there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice, and all convictions were quashed. A new trial was ordered.