R v Dixon
[2021] NZHC 3490
•16 December 2021
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 3490
THE QUEEN v
RICKYLEE DIXON
Hearing: 16 December 2021 Appearances:
A McConachy and S J Bird for Crown A Hill for Defendant
Judgment:
16 December 2021
SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
R v DIXON [2021] NZHC 3490 [16 December 2021]
[1] Ms Dixon, at 37 years of age you appear for sentence today on three charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, one charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, two charges of kidnapping, two charges of participating in an organised criminal group and one charge of blackmail.
[2] The maximum sentences for the most serious of those, namely the kidnapping and charges relating to causing or wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, are 14 years imprisonment. The other charges have lesser sentences.
[3] You pleaded guilty to these charges after I gave you a sentence indication on 7 October 2021.1 I base my sentencing remarks on the sentence indication. They will form part of the sentencing notes and will be attached to my sentencing remarks.
The facts
[4] You are to be sentenced on the basis of a summary of facts that was prepared for the sentence indication hearing. This revealed that you were the ringleader of a group of people who kidnapped a female victim on two separate occasions. On each occasion she was beaten severely both by you and others in the group. The purpose of this was to extort sums of money from the victim’s father. All the offending arose from the fact that the victim drove you to Court one day in your car. You obviously believed you would not be remanded in custody but that is what happened. As a result the victim was left to look after your vehicle.
[5] When you were released from custody you discovered that some methamphetamine you had stored in the vehicle had disappeared. You got it into your head that the victim had stolen it. You then set about organising a means by which you could get compensation for the fact that she had stolen methamphetamine from you. This led to the two incidents that have resulted in the charges for which you appear for sentence today.
The incident on 12 September 2020
1 R v Dixon [2021] NZHC 2679.
[6] The first incident began at approximately 4 am on 12 September 2020. On that date you sent two male associates round to the victim’s house. They entered the house and went to her bedroom. They then literally dragged her out of the bed. When she resisted, one of them pointed an imitation firearm at her and she believed this to be real.
[7] The two men then drove the victim to your address. You contacted her father and told him to bring money to the address to obtain the safe return of his daughter. He came to your house and handed over approximately $1500 in cash. You then sent him away, telling him it was not enough. Whilst you waited for him to return you refused to let the victim leave, and you made her do chores around your house. Eventually the victim’s father returned to the house and gave you some more money. However, this did not result in you releasing the victim. Instead you took her into a bedroom where you struck her repeatedly with an aluminium baseball bat. Whilst this was going on the victim’s father was waiting in the lounge from where he could hear his daughter being beaten in the bedroom.
[8] The attack was eventually continued by two of your associates, one of whom was your 18 year old daughter. It only ended when the baseball bat broke in half. The beating resulted in the victim’s head being split open. She also suffered numerous bruises and abrasions. She was eventually escorted back into the lounge of the address where she was reunited with her father. You told the victim’s father he was not to contact the police and that he would need to pay more money in the future in order to ensure his daughter’s safety.
[9] Within a week of that incident you began sending threatening text messages to the victim’s father. You told him he had to pay more money, or his daughter would be kidnapped again. This resulted in the victim’s father making several payments in cash to you.
The incident on 21 October 2020
[10] On the afternoon of 21 October 2020 you arranged for one of the victim’s friends to pick her up from her home and deliver her to a shopping centre on a pretext.
You and two associates were waiting in a vehicle in a carpark at the shopping centre. You and one of your associates told the victim to get into your vehicle. She was initially reluctant to do so but eventually complied with your request. You and your associate then got back into the vehicle.
[11] You and two associates then drove to an address where you told the victim to get into another vehicle. You then spent several hours driving around Rotorua. During the journey you called the victim’s father and told him you were coming to get money from him. You went to his address and he paid you several thousand more dollars in cash. You then went to a bar and spent some of the money that had been obtained from the victim’s father. Whilst this was going on the victim remained in the vehicle with persons from your group acting as guards. Her handbag and cellphone were taken from her so she had no means of calling for assistance. Later in the evening the group took the victim to a motel in the boot of the vehicle. You and one of your associates were residing at the motel and held the victim there overnight.
[12] The next morning you arranged to meet the victim’s father at a specified location so he could pay you for his daughter’s return. You travelled to this location but for some unknown reason the victim’s father did not turn up. You then took the victim back to the motel, where you told your associates that they were not finished with the victim and you were going to make some more money.
[13] You and others in your group then subjected her to a severe beating. During this she was bound and gagged. She was kicked, punched and beaten about the head and body with weapons including a baseball bat, hand weights, a tomahawk and hedge clippers. At one stage a sharp object was inserted through her lip, causing a hole in her lip. Her nose was also broken by a blow from the baseball bat. One of your associates bent the victim’s arm to the point where the elbow snapped. At one stage you produced your cellphone. You recorded what was happening and told the victim you were going to send the images to her father along with a demand for further payment.
[14] The victim was ultimately wrapped in a blanket and loaded onto the rear tray of a utility vehicle that had been brought to the address by one of your associates. She
was then driven to two other addresses. Her detention finally came to an end when members of a local gang who had been searching for her intercepted the vehicle in which she was being held. The victim was then released into their custody.
[15] As a result of this incident the victim suffered extensive injuries. These included significant bruising and swelling to her face, two black eyes, a broken nose, a broken elbow, a wound to her lip and numerous bruises and abrasions. She required urgent surgery for her broken elbow.
[16] This morning you heard the victim read her victim impact statement to the Court. That was, in my view, an extremely measured response by the victim who showed considerable bravery in coming to the Court today to tell us of the long- standing effects produced by this offending. First, she suffered the physical injuries that required her hospitalisation and surgery. Secondly, she needed to go through long- term rehabilitation for those injuries. Thirdly, she has suffered significant financial detriment because she has been required to pay for various forms of treatment. Fourthly, and perhaps most importantly, it is clear that the offending will have very long-lasting effects for her. She and her family, including her father who was of course a victim of the offending, had to leave town because they are fearful that persons sympathetic to your cause may seek retribution against them. They are fearful to return here. The offending has also had significant long-standing psychological effects for the victim.
Starting point
[17] The aggravating factors inherent in your offending led me to a select a starting point of 16 years imprisonment. I do not propose to go through the process by which I reached that starting point again. This is set out in sufficient detail in my sentence indication. Importantly, however, it involved two separate incidents, both of which were clearly premeditated and planned by you. Furthermore, you were the instigator of the offending and you were the only person who received financial gain from it. It involved two separate beatings of the victim that have resulted in long-lasting injuries for her.
Aggravating factors
[18] You have previous convictions including convictions for offending involving violence. However, these are largely historical. The Crown accepted that no uplift was warranted for them, and I accepted that submission.
Mitigating factors
[19] During the sentence indication hearing the only mitigating factor for which I was prepared to give you a discount was that for guilty pleas. I applied a discount of 20 per cent, or three years three months, to reflect guilty pleas. This reduced the sentence from one of 16 years imprisonment to one of 12 years nine months imprisonment.
[20] I said at the end of the sentence indication that I would consider any further material that was placed before me at sentencing to determine whether you should be given further discounts for mitigating factors. I now have a comprehensive pre- sentence report and also a very detailed report that has been tendered to me by your counsel under s 27 of the Sentencing Act 2002. This details the history of your life. It tells me that you grew up in circumstances where both your parents were senior members of the Black Power gang. The gang was part of your family’s everyday life and to all intents and purposes you were entrenched in its activities from the outset.
[21] Coupled with this were several other factors. The first is that you were witness to numerous incidents involving violence throughout your childhood and adolescence. This included violence against members of your family in different forms including violence against yourself. It seems that violence was the default method by which your family and their associates dealt with any problems that came their way. Secondly, the consumption of alcohol and drugs was part of everyday life within your family and its associates. You began drinking alcohol at the age of eight years. You began drinking in earnest at the age of 13 years. You started smoking cannabis in your early teens, and then later turned to methamphetamine. You told the writer of the report that thereafter methamphetamine became the master of your life and it ruled everything you did. It certainly led to the events for which you are here for sentence today.
[22] Your educational aspirations were virtually nil. You moved around from school to school and by the time you left school at an early age you had no formal qualifications. This has led to a situation in which you have never really held down a steady job. You have carried on in a life where the acquisition and consumption of drugs and alcohol have been your daily objectives. In many ways it is absolutely no surprise at all that you ended up becoming involved in incidents of the type that have led to these charges. You became incensed when you believed the victim had taken methamphetamine from you. This led you to respond in the only way you knew how, which was to inflict violence on the person you believed had done you wrong.
[23] The Crown submits that, although you should be given some discount to reflect the factors I have identified in your upbringing, this should be limited because of the serious nature of the charges. I agree with that submission as far as it goes, but the Court of Appeal has made it clear that factors identified in a s 27 report may be given weight even in the case of very serious offending.2 I have no doubt that your offending on these occasions was prompted by your conditioning throughout your childhood and adolescence. This ultimately led to your addiction to drugs and willingness to resort to violence to solve your problems. I propose to allow a discount of three years three months, or 20 per cent, to reflect those factors.
[24] This takes into account expressions by you to the writer of the report of your determination to engage in rehabilitative therapy. You say you are signing up for every course that is going in prison, and that is obviously to be commended. For you the real test will come on your release from prison. If you return to your community then I have very little doubt that you will find it extremely difficult to throw away the shackles of the past and begin a new life. You have a very large hill to climb, Ms Dixon, if you are to rid yourself of the cycle of drug addiction and violence that has formed the core of your being to this point. The discount I have given for this factor also takes into account the extent to which your drug addiction led to the present offending.
2 Carr v R [2020] NZCA 357at [64].
[25] Coupled with the discount given for guilty pleas, this means I am prepared to give you discounts totalling six years six months from the original starting point of 16 years imprisonment.
Sentence
[26] On the charge of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and the charges of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so, you are sentenced to nine years six months imprisonment. On the four charges of injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, you are sentenced to five years imprisonment. On the two charges of kidnapping, you are sentenced to four years imprisonment. On the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, you are sentenced to four years imprisonment. On the charge of blackmail, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment.
[27] All sentences are to be served concurrently. This means you will serve an effective sentence of nine years six 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 2679
THE QUEEN
v
RICKYLEE DIXON
Hearing: 7 October 2021
Counsel:A McConachy for Crown A Hill for Defendant
Judgment: 7 October 2021
SENTENCE INDICATION OF LANG J
Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Rotorua
[1] Ms Dixon faces charges of kidnapping (x 2), participating in an organised criminal group (x 2), causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so (x 2), injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm (x 4), wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm and blackmail. She now seeks a sentence indication. This is an indication of the sentence that will be imposed on her if she is to enter guilty pleas to the charges in the near future.
[2] If Ms Dixon declines the indication and is found guilty at trial the sentence indication will be of no effect. In that event the trial Judge will impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of Ms Dixon’s offending as established by the evidence at trial.
The facts
[3] A summary of facts has been prepared for the hearing today. This reveals that Ms Dixon was the ringleader of a group of people who kidnapped a female victim on two separate occasions. On each occasion the victim was severely beaten both by Ms Dixon and others in the group. This was done for the purpose of extorting sums of money from the victim’s father.
[4] The charges have their genesis in the fact that the victim drove Ms Dixon to a court appearance in Ms Dixon’s car. Following the court appearance Ms Dixon was remanded in custody. The victim then dropped Ms Dixon’s vehicle off at the house of another of Ms Dixon’s associates. When Ms Dixon was ultimately released, she claimed that methamphetamine she had left in her car had disappeared. She blamed the victim for taking the methamphetamine and decided to exact retribution by kidnapping the victim and extorting money from the victim’s father.
The first incident
[5] The first incident began at approximately 4 am on 12 September 2020, when Ms Dixon instructed two of her associates to go to the victim’s house. They dragged the victim from her bed. When she resisted they threatened her with an imitation firearm that the victim believed to be real.
[6] The two associates then took the victim to Ms Dixon’s address, where Ms Dixon contacted the victim’s father and told him to bring money to the address in return for the safe return of his daughter. He came to Ms Dixon’s address and handed over approximately $1500 in cash. She then sent him away, telling him it was not enough. Whilst waiting for him to return Ms Dixon refused to let the victim leave and made her do chores around the house. The victim’s father returned to the address and gave Ms Dixon more money.
[7] This did not result in Ms Dixon releasing the victim. Instead she took the victim into a bedroom where she struck her repeatedly with an aluminium baseball bat. Whilst this was going on the victim’s father was forced to wait in the lounge, from where he could hear his daughter being beaten in the bedroom.
[8] The attack was then continued by two of Ms Dixon’s associates and only ended when the baseball bat broke in half. The beating resulted in the victim’s head being split open. She also suffered numerous bruises and abrasions. The victim was eventually escorted back to the lounge, where she was reunited with her father. Ms Dixon told the victim’s father he was not to contact the police and that he would need to pay more money to ensure his daughter’s safety in the future.
The second incident
[9] Within a week of the first incident Ms Dixon began sending threatening text messages to the victim’s father. She told him he had to pay more money or his daughter would be kidnapped again. This resulted in the victim’s father making several further cash payments to Ms Dixon.
[10] On the afternoon of 21 October 2020 Ms Dixon arranged for one of the victim’s friends to pick the victim up from her home and deliver her to a shopping centre. Ms Dixon and an associate were waiting in a vehicle at the shopping centre. Ms Dixon and her associate got out of their vehicle and told the victim to get into it. The victim was initially reluctant to do so but ultimately complied with their request. Ms Dixon and her associate then got back into the vehicle.
[11] Ms Dixon and two associates then drove to an address where they told the victim to get into another vehicle. Ms Dixon’s associates then drove around Rotorua with the victim in their vehicle. During the journey they called the victim’s father’s and told him they were coming to get money from him. When they arrived at his address the victim’s father paid them several thousand dollars in cash. They then drove to a bar, where they met Ms Dixon and spent several hours spending some of the money they had received from the victim’s father. During this period the victim remained locked in the vehicle with one of Ms Dixon’s associates acting as a guard. Her handbag and cellphone were taken from her so she had no means of calling for assistance. The group then took the victim to a motel in the boot of their vehicle. Ms Dixon and one of her associates were residing at the motel and the victim was held there overnight.
[12] The next morning Ms Dixon told several of her associates that they were not finished with the victim and they were going to make more money. She then arranged to meet the victim’s father at a specified location so he could pay Ms Dixon for his daughter’s return. Ms Dixon and her associates travelled to this location with the victim but, for reasons unknown, they did not meet up with the victim’s father.
[13] The group then took the victim back to the motel where they subjected her to a prolonged beating. The victim was bound and gagged. She was then kicked, punched and beaten about the head and body with objects including a baseball bat, hand weights, a tomahawk and hedge clippers. At one stage a sharp object was inserted into her mouth, causing a hole in her lip. Her nose was also broken by a blow from the baseball bat. One of Ms Dixon’s associates, Ms Harete Ohlson, bent the victim’s arm to the point where the elbow snapped.
[14] At one stage Ms Dixon produced her cellphone and recorded what was happening. She told the victim she was going to send the images to her father along with a demand for further payment.
[15] The victim was ultimately wrapped in a blanket and loaded onto the rear tray of Ms Ohlson’s utility vehicle. She was then driven to two other addresses. Her detention finally came to an end when members of a local gang who had been
searching for her intercepted the vehicle in which she was being held. The victim was then released into their custody.
[16] The victim suffered extensive injuries including significant bruising and swelling to her face, two black eyes, a broken nose, a broken elbow, a wound to her lip and numerous bruises and abrasions. She required urgent surgery for her broken elbow.
Starting point
[17] There is no tariff or guideline judgment for the offence of kidnapping. Counsel agree, however, that the principles referred to in R v Taueki inform the starting point to be selected for Ms Dixon’s offending.3 That case relates to the offence of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to do so and Ms Dixon faces several charges of that nature.
[18] The offending in both incidents had several obvious aggravating factors. The first is that both kidnappings were premeditated in the sense that they were planned and orchestrated by Ms Dixon. In both cases the victim was taken from her home and effectively kept prisoner for a prolonged period. She was also assaulted by multiple attackers during that time. The victim was in a position of significant vulnerability throughout this period because she had no hope of escape. In the second incident she was bound and gagged.
[19] I would also categorise the violence used against the victim in the second incident as extreme because it involved blows to the head and body with a tomahawk and other items. It also involved the victim’s elbow and nose being deliberately broken. Mr Dixon was directly involved in these activities and she also procured others to engage in them. The attack resulted in the victim suffering extensive injuries, although it is not yet known whether these will be of long-lasting effect.
[20] Both incidents also involved a considerable degree of callousness. The first incident involved the victim’s father being required to hear his daughter being beaten
3 R v Taueki [2005] 3 NZLR 372 (CA).
severely in the bedroom. This was no doubt done to emphasis the seriousness of Ms Dixon’s threats about what would happen if he did not find more money to pay Ms Dixon. The second incident involved Ms Dixon filming the assaults so that images could be sent to the victim’s father.
[21] Finally, the offending was carried out solely for commercial gain and Ms Dixon was the only beneficiary of this.
[22] Counsel for the Crown has referred me to several authorities involving the infliction of violence on persons who have been detained against their will.4 These demonstrate that starting points of six to 15 years imprisonment will be appropriate for offending involving the prolonged detention and infliction of violence against a vulnerable victim. The Crown contends a global starting point of around 16 years imprisonment is appropriate given Ms Dixon’s central role in both incidents.
[23] I have already given a sentence indication to Ms Ohlson.5 She was not charged with blackmail or with being involved in the first incident. She did not become meaningfully involved in the second incident until the morning after the victim was taken to Ms Dixon’s motel. Ms Ohlson was responsible for several of the assaults that occurred at the motel, including the incident that led to the victim having a broken elbow. I selected a starting point of ten years six months imprisonment for Ms Ohlson.6
[24] Ms Dixon’s offending is obviously significantly more serious for several reasons. First, she was the instigator of this offending and she orchestrated it for the purpose of extorting money from the victim’s father. In addition, Ms Dixon was fully involved in both incidents, whereas Ms Ohlson was only involved in the second.
[25] I agree with counsel for the Crown regarding the starting points that would ordinarily apply to each of the two incidents. Standing alone, the first incident would
4 R v Johnson [2019] NZHC 111, R v Liev [2017] NZHC 2253, R v Salt [2017] NZHC 1979, Cook v R [2010] NZCA 87, Couper v R [2017] NZCA 588, R v Hourigan [2020] NZHC 2753, R v Mulvey [2016] NZHC 2568, R v Yates [2018] NZHC 1341; and Kreegher v R [2021] NZCA 22.
5 R v Ohlson [2021] NZHC 2536.
6 At [21].
justify a starting point of between eight and ten years imprisonment. The level of prolonged violence that was inflicted on the victim during the second incident plainly falls towards the upper end of Band 3 identified in Taueki. It would justify a starting point of ten to 12 years imprisonment. The fact that the offending in the second incident also involved the victim being detained for a considerable period and was motivated by a desire to extort money from her father means a higher starting point would be justified.
[26] It is important, however, to ensure that totality principles are observed. An end sentence of 20 to 22 years imprisonment would be out of all proportion to the overall gravity of the offending. However, Mr Hill’s suggestion of a global starting point of around 11 years imprisonment falls well short of the mark. Applying totality principles I consider the global starting point of 16 years imprisonment suggested by the Crown to be appropriate.
Aggravating factors
[27] Ms Dixon has previous convictions, including convictions for offending involving violence. These are largely historic, however, and the Crown accepts an uplift is not warranted. I agree.
Mitigating factors
[28] The only mitigating factor for which a discount can be given at this stage is that relating to guilty pleas. In line with the discount given to Ms Ohlson I would apply a discount of 20 per cent, or three years three months, to reflect guilty pleas. This would reduce the sentence to one of 12 years nine months imprisonment.
Indicated sentence
[29] The indicated sentence is therefore one of 12 years nine months imprisonment before taking into account any other mitigating factors that might be identified in material provided prior to sentencing.
[30] Mr Hill is to file and serve a memorandum no later than Wednesday 13 October 2021 to advise the Crown and the Court whether Ms Dixon accepts the indication.
Lang J
9
0