R v Dixon - [2017] NZHC 2279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2016-092-012355 [2017] NZHC 2279

THE QUEEN

v

PATRICK DIXON

Hearing: 20 September 2017

Counsel:

L P Radich for the Crown
P Leʼauʼanae for the Defendant

Sentence:

20 September 2017

SENTENCE OF EDWARDS J

Counsel: P Le’au’anae, Auckland

Solicitors: Kayes Fletcher Walker Limited, Auckland
Mason Treloar Harvey, Auckland

R v DIXON [2017] NZHC 2279 [20 September 2017]

Introduction

[1] Mr Dixon, you appear for sentence having been found guilty of a number of offences following a jury trial in Auckland. The offences for which I am sentencing you today are:

(a) Two offences of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer.

That offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.

(b) One offence of threatening to kill. That offence carries a maximum

penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

(c) One offence of male assaults female. That offence carries a maximum

penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

[2] You were acquitted on a further charge of assault with a weapon.

Offending

[3] Your offending took place in the early hours of 3 February 2016. You, your ex partner and her cousin, were driving back from Waihi to Auckland. You were in the back seat and your ex partner and her cousin were in the front seat. Your ex partner was driving.

[4] During the course of that car journey you became increasingly agitated, and you began arguing with your ex partner. You blamed her for calling the police on you. You had a warrant out for your arrest at the time, and you had disappeared when police came looking for you the day before.

[5] Your agitation escalated. You punched your former partner two or three times in the face with a closed fist whilst she was driving.

[6] At some point in time, you threatened to kill your ex partner by pointing the

gun at her and saying words such as, “I’ll blow you away” or, “I’ll use this gun”. It

is not certain whether the gun was loaded at the time. But it is clear that you had bullets with you, and the means and the intention to follow through on your threat.

[7] You arrived back in Auckland, and were in the vicinity of Manurewa, at around 3.30 am in the morning. Senior Sergeant Wood was on duty that night. He saw the vehicle you were in and, thinking it was the type of car which is often stolen, decided to make some inquiries. Those inquiries showed that the car was not stolen, but it was unregistered. He decided to pull the car over. He followed the car, flicking his headlights, then activating his red and blue lights, and finally using his siren.

[8] The car slowed, and eventually pulled over to the side of the road. Just as the officer was getting out of his car, you opened fire. You fired three shots. The bullets bounced off the…

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 [2017] NZHC 2279
Case: [2017] NZHC 2279
Decision Date: 20 September 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Patrick Dixon has been sentenced in the High Court of New Zealand following a jury trial in Auckland, in which he was found guilty of three offences. These were two offences of using a firearm against a law enforcement officer, one offence of threatening to kill, and one offence of male assaults female. The maximum penalties for these offences were 14 years, seven years, and two years imprisonment, respectively. The court also considered a further charge of assault with a weapon, of which Dixon was acquitted. Dixon's offending involved a lengthy criminal history, with 78 convictions, including for violence and dishonesty offences. He had also failed to take responsibility for his actions, or to show any remorse. The court found that the appropriate starting point for sentencing was 10 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with an uplift of 1 year for the other offences and 1 year for his prior convictions. The court also found that a minimum period of imprisonment was appropriate, and sentenced Dixon to 12 years and 6 months' imprisonment for the two firearms offences, 12 months' imprisonment for the threatening to kill offence, and 6 months' imprisonment for the male assaults female offence, to be served concurrently. The court imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of 6 years.

Orders