Legal Research
Cases
R v Dixon

R v Dixon

Case [2021] NZHC 271 12 February 2021

Criminal Liability

Mens Rea & Intention

Breach of Trust

Vulnerability of Victims

Minimum Period of Imprisonment

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT(S) PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME(S), ADDRESS(ES), OCCUPATION(S) OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF ANY COMPLAINANT(S)/ PERSON(S) UNDER THE AGE OF 18 YEARS WHO APPEARED AS A WITNESS [OR NAMED WITNESS UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE] PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CRI-2019-029-000061 CRI-2018-029-001101 CRI-2019-019-001490

CRI-2018-019-002222 [2021] NZHC 271

THE QUEEN

v

MICHAEL MORGAN DIXON

Hearing: 12 February 2021

Appearances:

R Guthrie for the Crown

A Cresswell for the Defendant

Sentence:

12 February 2021

SENTENCING NOTES OF HINTON J

Solicitors/Counsel:
Crown Solicitors, Hamilton
Annabel Cresswell, Barrister, Auckland

R v DIXON [2021] NZHC 271 [12 February 2021]

[1] Mr Dixon, you appear for sentence today having pleaded guilty to a number of charges related, primarily, to what the Crown terms as predatory and repetitive offending against two children with whose parents you cultivated relationships.

[2] You are also for sentence on a charge related to your repeatedly having choked an adult sexual partner during sex, despite her telling you to stop.

[3] I am also required to deal with two breaches of an extended supervision order, and your breach of a sentence of community work.

[4] Ordinarily, the current charges would be dealt with in the District Court. You are appearing in the High Court today because the Crown submits I should impose a sentence of preventive detention, which can only be imposed in this Court.1 They say this because of your history of offending, including the charges in respect of which you appear today. The Crown submits that history makes it necessary for you to be imprisoned for an indeterminate period, so as to protect the community against what they say is the likelihood of your committing serious sexual and violent offences in the future.

[5] I will begin today by summarising the facts of your past offending, including the present charges, and the reports that have been provided to the Court by both the Crown and your counsel, Ms Creswell. I will then use that information to determine the appropriate finite term of imprisonment in this case. That will then assist me, finally, in determining whether I should then instead impose a sentence of preventive detention.

Offending

[6] At the beginning of 2016, you began a friendship and sexual relationship with a woman in [redacted]. From November 2016 until January 2017, you lived with her and her two daughters, S and Z, in [redacted]. You were also friendly with the girls’ father. You offended against the girls at both their mother’s and father’s houses.

1 See Sentencing Act 2002, ss 87(3) and 90.

[7] On one occasion, you approached S after she had finished washing the dishes. She was then aged nine. You hugged and kissed her on the lips, forcing your tongue into her mouth.2

[8] On another…

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

Details

AGLC: R v Dixon [2021] NZHC 271
Case: [2021] NZHC 271
Decision Date: 12 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dixon was heard by the High Court of New Zealand. Dixon, the defendant, had pleaded guilty to charges involving predatory and repetitive offending against two children, theft, and assault with intent to injure a sexual partner. Dixon also faced charges related to breaching an extended supervision order and a community work sentence. The Crown argued for a sentence of preventive detention, citing Dixon's history of serious sexual and violent offences. The court had to decide whether to impose a finite term of imprisonment or an indefinite term of preventive detention. The court considered the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Dixon's criminal history and risk of reoffending. The court also reviewed pre-sentence reports and health assessors' opinions, which highlighted Dixon's high risk of reoffending due to his psychological profile and history of failing to comply with legal restraints. Ultimately, the court determined that a finite sentence would not adequately protect the community and imposed a sentence of preventive detention with a minimum period of five years' imprisonment. Dixon was also sentenced to concurrent terms for breaching his extended supervision order and community work sentence, and for theft.

Orders