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 had already struck the victim with the bat on numerous occasions. You continued to strike her with the bat until the bat broke in half. The victim’s father was outside in the lounge listening to the beating that was being administered to his daughter.

The incident on 22 October 2020

[7]    You were also fully involved in the second incident on 21 and 22 October 2020. You were present when the victim was at a motel unit in Rotorua on the morning of 22 October 2020. She had been held at the motel overnight. During this incident the victim was punched, elbowed and kicked by you whilst she was on the ground. You also used a baseball bat to break her nose and split her scalp. In addition, you assisted in gagging the victim by ramming a sock into her mouth and tying a blue bandanna around it. You also at one stage used the flat end of a tomahawk to strike the victim in the head. During this ordeal you were telling the victim she was “dog shit” and a “bitch”. At one stage you also picked up a pair of hedge clippers and used these against the victim’s fingers. In addition, you shoved a sharp object into the victim’s mouth, causing a hole in her lip.

[8]    At the end of the episode in the motel you and your mother wrapped the victim in a sheet and placed her in the tray of a utility vehicle that was then used to transport the victim away from the motel. The victim was then taken to two other addresses before she was eventually released by persons who had been looking for her.

Starting point

[9]    The starting point of 15 years imprisonment reflected several aggravating factors of your offending. The first is that you were prepared to become involved in two separate premeditated incidents in which the victim was kidnapped and then

severely beaten. This resulted in the victim sustaining significant injuries including splits to her scalp, a broken elbow, a broken nose and numerous bruises and abrasions.

[10]   This morning when your mother was sentenced the victim read out a heartfelt, yet measured, victim impact statement to the Court. This set out in graphic detail the effect your offending has had on her. First, it resulted in the injuries I have described. These required surgery to the elbow and a considerable period of medical treatment and recuperation thereafter. It has also cost the victim a significant amount in financial terms because she has been required to meet the costs of ongoing medical and other treatment.

[11]   In addition, the victim and her family have had to move away from this city because they no longer feel safe here. They believe that persons sympathetic to your cause may well seek to exact retribution against them for the fact that she was prepared to lay charges against you. The effects of the offending, not surprisingly, have also extended to the victim’s father, who was also very much a victim in his own right. He, too, is extremely apprehensive about being found in this city by persons associated with you.

[12]   The next issue is that you were personally involved in both attacks when you used weapons to strike the victim in the head. Particularly callous was the fact that you were prepared to punch a hole in the victim’s lip by inserting an object through her lip. Overarching all of this is that the offending was done for monetary gain by your mother. You would have been aware of that fact from the outset because it was central to the events that unfolded.

[13]   Both incidents also contained an element of callousness because, in the first incident, the victim’s father was forced to listen to his daughter being beaten in the bedroom. During the second incident your mother filmed some of the events that occurred and said she was going to send the images to the victim’s father to encourage him to pay more money.

Aggravating factors

[14]   In giving you a sentence indication I noted that you had no previous convictions so no uplift was required to reflect aggravating factors personal to you.

Mitigating factors

[15]   The only mitigating factor for which I was prepared to give you a discount at the sentence indication stage was that for guilty pleas. I indicated I would give a discount of 20 per cent, or three years, to reflect guilty pleas. This would reduce the starting point from 15 years imprisonment to 12 years imprisonment.

[16]   I now have a wealth of additional material from which I can determine whether, and to what extent, I should apply further deductions to reflect other mitigating factors. The first and most obvious is that you committed these offences when you were just 18 years of age. Furthermore, I have no doubt that you were significantly influenced in your decision to become involved in both incidents by your mother, who was the driver of this offending.

[17]   It has been said that a reduction for age may be tempered by the fact that very serious offending is involved.2 On the other hand, I must recognise that you committed these offences at a young age when you probably had no idea of the consequences that would follow either for you and for others in your group or, most importantly, for the victim. I propose to apply a discrete discount of two years three months, or 15 per cent, to reflect your age.

[18]   I also now have a pre-sentence report and a report tendered to me by your counsel under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. The latter sets out in very considerable detail your family and cultural background. In many ways it provides me with a complete answer as to how you became involved in this offending.

[19]   Ms Dixon, your life and lifestyle to date mirrors that of your mother. You both grew up in a household that was deeply immersed in the Black Power gang. Your mother had been around it for her whole life because both her parents were very senior

2      Kisiogo v R [2021] NZHC 1648 at [18].

members of that gang. Every aspect of the family’s life has been driven by gang- related matters. Your family socialises with the gang and engages in gang-related activities.

[20]   This has had a profound effect on your upbringing. First, you have lived in what can properly be described as conditions of poverty. Secondly, you have observed physical violence being inflicted on those around you from an early age. Thirdly, your parents have been neglectful because they put alcohol, drugs and gang-related activities well ahead of your own interests. This resulted in you being exposed to the regular consumption of alcohol and drugs at a very early stage. Like your mother, you began drinking alcohol at an early age and then graduated to smoking cannabis. By the age of 18 you were smoking methamphetamine and indeed methamphetamine had been smoked by persons involved in both incidents. More importantly, the whole dispute, if it can be called that, with the victim arose because of your mother’s belief that she had stolen methamphetamine from her.

[21]   In many ways it is not a surprise at all that you face these charges today. It is more of a surprise that you have been able to remain out of trouble up until now. However, taking into account your family background I have no doubt that you were conditioned from an early age to respond to alleged slights by others by inflicting violence on those responsible. This is certainly the approach taken by your mother and you were undoubtedly willing to adopt the same approach.

[22]   I applied a discount of 20 per cent to reflect these factors when sentencing your mother. Your counsel says you should receive a greater discount, but I disagree. I see your position as being essentially identical to that of your mother. She is now 37 years of age, whereas you are just 19 years of age. You are therefore slightly less entrenched in the lifestyle to which I have referred. I therefore propose to allow a discount of three years, or 20 per cent, to reflect this factor.

[23]   This takes into account any remorse you may have expressed. The pre- sentence report suggests you express no remorse at all. The cultural report suggests that, after some probing, you made comments that might be taken as expressions of remorse to the writer of the report. However, I consider that you probably do not really

have true insight into the position you found yourself in at the time of the offending or that in which you placed the victim.

[24]   You may have rehabilitative prospects, but they are going to be difficult to realise. The test for you, as it will be for your mother, will come when you are released from prison. If you return to the lifestyle from which you have come, then it is virtually inevitable that you are going to be involved in this kind of offending in the future. If that occurs, prison sentences are likely to be the norm.

[25]   Applying the discount of eight years three months, I am left with a final sentence of six years nine months.

Sentence

[26]   On each of the charges of wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, you are sentenced to six years nine months imprisonment. On the charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm you are sentenced to five years imprisonment. On the kidnapping charges you are sentenced to three years imprisonment. On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group you are sentenced to three years imprisonment.

[27]   All sentences are to be served concurrently. This means you will serve an effective sentence of six years nine months imprisonment.

Lang J

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND OF THE REQUEST FOR A SENTENCING INDICATION IN ANY NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE DATABASE IS

PROHIBITED BY SECTION 63 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011 UNTIL THE DEFENDANT HAS BEEN SENTENCED OR THE CHARGE DISMISSED. SEE

THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE ROTORUA-NUI-Ā-KAHU ROHE

CRI-2020-063-2105 [2021] NZHC 2750

THE QUEEN

v

DAISY DIXON SHAUN TE KIRI

Hearing:  14 October 2021

Counsel:S J Bird (on behalf of A McConachy) for Crown R Raukawa for Ms Dixon

N Tahana for Mr Te Kiri

Judgment:  14 October 2021

SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua

[28]   Ms Dixon and Mr Te Kiri face a variety of charges arising out of incidents that occurred on 12 September and 21-22 October 2020. The charges include kidnapping, participating in an organised criminal group, causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

[29]   The defendants now seek a sentence indication. This is an indication of the sentences they would receive if they were to enter guilty pleas to the charges that they face in the near future.

[30]   If the defendants decline the indications and are found guilty at trial the sentence indications will have no further effect. In that event the trial Judge will impose a sentence that reflects the overall gravity of their offending as established by the evidence at trial.

The facts

[31]   A summary of facts has been prepared for sentence indication purposes. These are summarised in a sentence indication that I gave for another defendant in this proceeding, Ms Rickylee Dixon.3 I take the reader of the present indication to be familiar with the facts set out in the sentence indication I gave Ms Dixon on 7 October 2021 and I do not repeat them here. Rather, I summarise the involvement of the present defendants having regard to the factual background set out in the sentence indication for Ms Dixon.

Ms Daisy Dixon

[32]   Ms Daisy Dixon faces charges of kidnapping (x2), participating in an organised criminal group (x2), wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (x4) and injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (x3).

[33]   Ms Dixon was involved in both incidents that have given rise to the charges. She was present at Ms Rickylee Dixon’s address when the victim was taken there in the early hours of 12 September 2020. She also continued to assault the victim with a baseball bat after Ms Rickylee Dixon had already struck her on several occasions with

3      R v Dixon [2021] NZHC 2679.

the bat. Encouraged by another associate, Ms Daisy Dixon continued to strike the victim until the bat broke in half.

[34]   Ms Daisy Dixon was also fully involved in the events that began on the afternoon of 21 October 2020 and then continued during the morning of 22 October 2020. During the incident at the motel unit on the morning of 22 October 2020 she punched, elbowed and kicked the victim whilst she was lying on the ground. She also used a variety of weapons to inflict significant physical injury on her. Ms Dixon used a baseball bat to break the victim’s nose and split her scalp. She also assisted in gagging the victim by ramming a sock into her mouth and tying a blue bandanna around it. Furthermore, at one stage she used the flat end of a tomahawk to strike the victim in the head. During this she was telling the victim she was “dog shit” and a “bitch”. Ms Dixon also picked up a pair of hedge clippers and used these against the victim’s fingers. In addition, she shoved a sharp object into the victim’s mouth, causing a hole in her lip.   At the end of the  episode in the motel unit she and       Ms Rickylee Dixon wrapped the victim in a sheet before placing her in the tray of the utility vehicle that was used to transport the victim away from the motel.

Starting point

[35]   The  Crown  contends  a  starting  point  of  15  years  is  appropriate  and   Ms Raukawa does not strongly challenge this on Ms Dixon’s behalf. She contends a starting point of between 14 and 15 years would be appropriate.

[36]   Taking the aggravating factors of the offending into account I consider that Ms Daisy Dixon’s culpability was only marginally less than that of Ms Rickylee Dixon, for whom I selected a starting point of 16 years imprisonment.4 Ms Daisy Dixon was significantly more involved in the physical assaults than Ms Rickylee Dixon during the second incident and she used a variety of weapons to injure the victim. This means an argument can easily be made that the starting point for her sentence should be at least as great as the starting point of 16 years imprisonment I selected for Ms Rickylee Dixon. However, I also need to take into account the fact

4 At [26].

that Ms Rickylee Dixon was the instigator of both incidents and she also received the financial benefits obtained from the kidnapping and detention of the victim.

[37]   I consider Ms Daisy Dixon’s culpability is considerably greater than that of Ms Harete Ohlson, who was only involved in the second incident. I selected a starting point of ten and a half years imprisonment when giving her a sentence indication.5

[38]   Taking these factors into account I consider a starting point of 15 years imprisonment appropriately reflects the overall culpability of Ms Daisy Dixon’s offending.

Aggravating factors

[39]   Ms Dixon has no previous convictions so no uplift is required to reflect aggravating factors personal to her.

Mitigating factors

[40]   The only mitigating factor for which I would give credit at this point would be guilty pleas. As in the case of Ms Rickylee Dixon and Ms Ohlson, I consider a discount of 20 per cent is appropriate. This amounts to 36 months and would reduce the starting point from 15 years imprisonment to 12 years imprisonment.

[41]   The indicated sentence for Ms Daisy Dixon is therefore one of 12 years imprisonment before taking into account any further mitigating factors that may be identified in material provided at sentencing. These are likely to include a significant discount for her youth because she is just 19 years of age.

Mr Te Kiri

[42]   Mr Te Kiri was only involved on the first day of the second incident. He was not present when the victim was badly beaten at the motel unit the following day.

5      R v Ohlson [2021] NZHC 2536 at [21].

[43]   Mr Te Kiri was in the vehicle that drove the victim away from the shopping mall on the afternoon of 21 October 2021. Ms Rickylee Dixon was also in this vehicle. The summary of facts records that Mr Te Kiri was sitting in the front passenger seat of the vehicle and was holding a knife and a long sword. He was also party to a conversation to the effect that the victim was being held as a hostage and they would receive money as a result of this.

[44]   A message was sent to the victim’s father telling him that the group were coming to get money from him. As the vehicle approached the victim’s father’s address Mr Te Kiri placed a blue bandanna over his face. He was present when the victim’s father paid the group a few thousand dollars in cash. Mr Te Kiri contributed to this episode by getting out of the vehicle and standing in an intimidatory pose. This was no doubt done to assist in persuading the victim’s father that he should hand over money to Ms Rickylee Dixon.

[45]   Mr Te Kiri was later present with other defendants at a bar in Rotorua. The group spent several hours at the bar spending money they had obtained from the victim’s father.

[46]   At about 9 pm Mr Te Kiri and several other defendants drove around the Rotorua area with the victim in their vehicle. They then returned to the bar, where the victim was required to remain in the vehicle and was guarded by a member of the group.

[47]   When the group left the bar they forced the victim to travel in the boot of the vehicle so she could not be seen.   They then drove the victim to the motel where   Ms Daisy Dixon and Ms Rickylee Dixon were living at the time.

Starting point

[48]   Mr Te Kiri’s culpability lies in the fact that he was a party to the kidnapping of the victim in the knowledge that this was being done to extort money from her father. He then actively participated as the money was handed over. He then travelled around Rotorua in the vehicle in which the victim was being held captive.

[49]   He therefore participated fully in the events that occurred on the afternoon of 21 October. His offending is aggravated by the fact that he was carrying two weapons whilst in the vehicle. These were obviously designed to intimidate the victim. Similarly, he positioned himself in such a way as to intimidate the victim’s father and persuade him to hand over money. He was not, however, present when the victim was assaulted.

[50]   Taking these factors into account I consider an appropriate starting point is one of five years imprisonment.

Aggravating factors

[51]   Mr Te Kiri has previous convictions including convictions for offending involving violence. However, none of these are really relevant for present purposes. For that reason I add no uplift for previous convictions.

Mitigating factors

[52]   The only mitigating factor for which I would give credit at this stage is guilty pleas. As in the case of the remaining defendants I propose to provide a discount of 20 per cent (or 12 months).

Indicated sentence

[53]   This results in an indicated sentence of four years imprisonment before taking into account any further mitigating factors that might be contained in material provided at sentencing.

Time for acceptance

[54]   The defendants have until 4 pm on Wednesday 20 October 2021 to advise the Crown and the Court whether they accept the sentence indications I have given.

Lang J