R v Dixon - [2021] NZHC 3496

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA

TE ROTORUA-NUI-A-KAHUMATAMOMOE ROHE

CRI-2020-063-2105

[2021] NZHC 3496

THE QUEEN

v

DAISY DIXON

Hearing: 16 December 2021

Appearances:

A McConachy and S J Bird for Crown R Raukawa for Defendant

Judgment:

16 December 2021

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

R v DIXON [2021] NZHC 3496 [16 December 2021]

[1] Ms Dixon, at 19 years of age you appear today for sentence having pleaded guilty to two charges of kidnapping, two charges of participating in an organised criminal group, four charges of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and three charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[2] The most serious charges are the charges of kidnapping and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. They each carry maximum sentences of 14 years imprisonment. The other charges carry lesser penalties.

The facts

[3] You entered your guilty pleas after I gave you a sentence indication on 14 October 2021.1 In the sentence indication I selected the starting point that reflected the overall culpability of your offending and gave you an indication of the discount you would receive if you entered guilty pleas at that stage. I do not propose to repeat what I said in my sentence indication. It will be annexed to my sentencing remarks and will form part of them.

[4] The sentence indication proceeded on the basis of an agreed summary of facts. This recorded that the genesis for your offending was the fact that your mother believed the female victim had stolen methamphetamine from her. She then arranged for the female victim to be kidnapped on two separate occasions and severely beaten on each. You were a party to both of those events.

The incident on 12 September 2020

[5] The first event occurred on 12 September 2020. On that date your mother sent two male associates around to the victim’s address at approximately 4 am. They broke into the address and literally dragged the victim out of bed. When she resisted, one of your mother’s associates produced and threatened the victim with an imitation pistol. Not surprisingly she believed it was real.

[6] The two intruders then took the victim back to a house, where you and your mother were waiting. Your mother called the victim’s father and told him he needed

1 R v Dixon [2021] NZHC 2750.

to come to the house with money if he wanted his daughter released. He then arrived at the house and gave your mother some cash. You mother told him it was not enough and told him to go away and get some more. He returned with more cash but your mother did not let the victim go. Instead, you and an associate took the victim into a bedroom where you both administered her a severe beating. You used a baseball bat to strike the victim and you did so after your mother…

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 3496
Case: [2021] NZHC 3496
Decision Date: 16 December 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of R v Dixon involved Daisy Dixon, who pleaded guilty to multiple charges including kidnapping, participating in an organised criminal group, and causing grievous bodily harm with intent. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing for these serious charges, which each carried a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment. The legal issues revolved around determining the starting point for sentencing, considering both aggravating and mitigating factors, and finally deciding on the concurrent sentences for each charge.

The court established a starting point of 15 years imprisonment, reflecting the severity of the offences, which involved two premeditated kidnappings and severe beatings of the victim. The court considered multiple aggravating factors, including the significant injuries inflicted on the victim, the callousness of the attacks, and the fact that the offences were committed for monetary gain. Mitigating factors such as Dixon's youth and the influence of her family background were also weighed. Ultimately, after applying discounts for mitigating factors, including Dixon's age and her family circumstances, the court sentenced her to six years and nine months imprisonment for the most serious charges, with other sentences to run concurrently.

The final orders of the court mandated that Dixon serve an effective sentence of six years and nine months imprisonment, with other sentences for the various charges to run concurrently. This decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the nature of the offences, the extent of the harm caused, and the personal circumstances of the defendant.

Orders