R v Dixon - [2021] NZHC 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2020-004-007093

[2021] NZHC 628

BETWEEN THE QUEEN

AND

KEITH WILLIAM DIXON

Defendant

Hearing: 24 March 2021

Counsel:

J Barry for Crown

D Taumihau for defendant
R K P Stewart for NZME Publishing Ltd, Radio New Zealand Ltd, Stuff Ltd, and Television New Zealand Ltd

Judgment:

24 March 2021

Reissued:

5 August 2021 (following lifting of name suppression)

ORAL JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

[Name suppression]

Solicitors: Public Defence Service, Auckland
Meredith Connell, Office of the Crown Solicitor, Auckland Copy to: Robert Stewart, Barrister, Shortland Chambers

R v A [2021] NZHC 628 [24 March 2021]

Addendum

[1] This judgment was reissued on 5 August 2021. The only changes are the removal of the previous suppression orders and the use of Mr Dixon’s full name (rather than the pseudonym “A”). This reflects the lifting of the previous suppression orders by Fitzgerald J by Minute dated 19 May 2021, following Mr Dixon’s death on 14 May 2021. There are no longer any suppression orders applying to this judgment.

Introduction

[2] The defendant, Keith William Dixon, has been charged with historic sexual offending at Dilworth School in 1973 and 1974. He faces three charges of indecently assaulting a boy under 16 years of age,1 and one charge of inducing a child to do an indecent act.2 There are three complainants.

[3] The charging documents were filed in the Auckland District Court on 26 February 2021. On 1 March 2021, Mr Dixon was granted interim name suppression under s 200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the “CPA”) by Judge D Sharp. That interim order is now due to expire. Mr Dixon now seeks a further name suppression order.

Relevant law – name suppression

[4] Determining whether the identity of a defendant should be suppressed requires a two-stage approach:3
[40] At the first stage, the judge must consider whether he or she is satisfied that any of the threshold grounds listed in 200(2) has been established. That is to say, whether publication would be likely to lead to one of the outcomes listed in subs (2). The listed outcomes are prerequisites to a court having jurisdiction to suppress the name of a defendant. It is “only if” one of the threshold grounds has been established that the judge is able to go on to the second stage.

[41] At the second stage, the judge weighs the competing interests of the applicant and the public, taking into account such matters as whether the applicant has been convicted, the seriousness of the offending, the views of the victims and the public interest in knowing the character of the offender.

1      Crimes Act 1961, s 140(1)(a) (as at 1973-1974, the time of the alleged offending). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
2      Crimes Act 1961, s 140(1)(c) (as at 1973, the time of the alleged offending). Maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.
3      Robertson v Police [2015] NZCA 7 at [40]-[41].

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 628
Case: [2021] NZHC 628
Decision Date: 24 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Keith William Dixon, is charged with historic sexual offending at Dilworth School in 1973 and 1974. He faces three charges of indecently assaulting a boy under 16 years of age, and one charge of inducing a child to do an indecent act. The legal issues in this case concern whether publication of Mr Dixon's name would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial, and whether his identity should be suppressed. The court considered media articles regarding Mr Dixon's previous convictions, and concluded that publication of his name at this time would create a real risk of prejudice to a fair trial. The risk was deemed to outweigh the principle of open justice, and the application for name suppression was granted. The court made orders prohibiting the publication of the defendant's name, the contents of the judgment, and the evidence and submissions made at the name suppression hearing. The orders are to remain in force until the earlier of the determination of any propensity application, or the commencement of the trial.

Orders