Anthony Malcolm Dixon lost Court of Appeal bid to have home invasion conviction quashed

A Central Queensland man’s callous desire for revenge over a ‘lemon car’ has backfired after the Court of Appeal has rejected his appeal against the jury’s verdict and his sentence.

A Central Queensland man’s callous desire for revenge over a ‘lemon car’ has backfired after the Court of Appeal has rejected his appeal against the jury’s verdict and his sentence.

Anthony Malcolm Dixon, 63, was found guilty by a jury of one count of burglary by break with violence in company and two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm after a trial in Rockhampton District Court in November 2021.

The former horse trainer sent his own son to prison after procuring him and his mates for a Frenchville home invasion where his son and his son’s friends carried out the physical side of the nightmare attack.

Dixon had been friends with Jeff Willington, 57, for years before Mr Willington sold Dixon a car which Dixon described as a ‘lemon’.

Dixon’s son, Lance Edward Dixon, along with Bailey Joseph Lill, were sentenced for their roles in the home invasion in August 2021, while the third co-attacker Steven Thomas Wegert was sentenced in October 2021.

During the sentences in 2021, the court heard Mr Willington’s son Michael Campbell had gone to Dixon junior’s sister’s place on August 5, 2020, and told her “your dad needs to pull his head in” after Dixon senior had been heard by Mr Campbell at the Frenchville Sports Club earlier that day calling him and his father a “bunch of dogs”.

Lance Edward Dixon, 25, was one of three men who carried out a home invasion, assaulting two men over a 'lemon car' sold to Lance's dad Anthony.

Telephone records showed Dixon senior contacted his son to carry out the retribution against the two men.

Dixon senior was sentenced to four years prison, declared 223 days presentence custody and ordered the sentence be suspended after serving two years, with a five-year operational period.

What the jury and Rockhampton District Court heard during sentences

Dixon senior, on August 5, 2021, banged on the back door about 10pm that night, after Mr Campbell and Mr Willington went to bed.

Mr Willington got out of bed and Dixon senior ran to the front of the house.

Moments later, there was a knock on the front door with Mr Willington finding Dixon junior at the door with a red bandana covering his face and saying “you sold my dad a s--- car. I’m going to get you”.

Lill and Wegert also had their faces covered.

Mr Willington denied selling Dixon junior’s father a ‘s--- car’ and told them to leave.

The trio then repeatedly told Mr Willington they were going to beat him up and pulled the security screen until it opened.

Dixon entered first, followed by Lill and Wegert.

Lill and Wegert were armed, one with a knife and the other a stake from Mr Willington’s tomato garden.

Mr Campbell ran down stairs and “shoulder barged Lill and Wegert”.

The trio then punched and used weapons to strike Mr Willington who fell to the floor and was kicked while on the ground.

Mr Willington was slashed with a knife and sustained a cut below his right knee.

Mr Willington was then knocked out and the trio turned their attention to Mr Campbell who was standing over his father trying to protect him.

Dixon junior grabbed Mr Campbell by the shirt and demanded he tell him where their money was.

Lill and Wegert looked for items to take.

Steven Thomas Wegert, 29, was sentenced in Rockhampton District Court on October 20, 2021. Picture: Social Media

The trio was spooked by a neighbour flashing a torch into the dwelling and they fled.

Lill’s fingerprints were found on a car belonging to one of the victims.

Two red bandannas and a black shirt were found in a creek bed with Dixon junior and Mr Campbell’s DNA found on the shirt.

A search of Dixon junior’s residence resulted in clothes worn during the incident being located.

Lill admitted to drug and alcohol intoxication that night.

Mr Willington sustained a fracture to his right orbit on his skull, multiple fractures of the nasal and facial bones, along with the cut to his leg.

The Court of Appeal’s decision

The decision, published on September 2, 2022, stated Dixon senior claimed the judge had interfered with the questioning of Mr Campbell during the trial which denied Dixon the chance to make a no case submission at the close of the prosecution’s case.

It also states Dixon appealed the sentence on the grounds it was manifestly excessive.

The decision states “at the conclusion of Mr Campbell’s evidence in chief, the trial judge said to the prosecutor “consent?” and the prosecutor then confirmed with Mr Campbell that he did not consent to anyone coming into his house that evening and did not consent to the assault”.

The document stated Dixon made submissions in his appeal that the jury should not have been persuaded by the evidence of Mr Willington and Mr Campbell because of inconsistencies between their evidence, however court of appeal judges Justice Debra Mullins, Justice Philip McMurdo and Justice John Bond found their evidence was not inconsistent.

“It was open to the jury to accept the evidence of Mr Willington’s seeing Mr Dixon (senior) at the back door of the townhouse before the incident and the evidence of Mr Campbell’s seeing him at the front window to gloat after the incident,” the decision stated.

The judges determined the judge reminding the prosecutor to ask Mr Campbell about consenting to the home invasion or assault “was not interference of a kind that could result in a miscarriage of justice”.

They said, in the decision, asking the consent question had to be done and even without the reminder, it could have been concluded from Mr Campbell’s evidence that he did not consent to the acts of the defendants.

As for the excessive sentence, the decision outlined the sentences handed to the younger co-offenders who had all pleaded guilty and that both prosecution and defence lawyers agreed a particular case comparison of R v Kraaz (2006) was relevant for the judge to use as guide in determining Dixon’s sentence.

They determined Dixon’s sentence was not unreasonable or unjust and therefore, not manifestly excessive.

The appeal against the conviction and application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.