KEY POINTS:
One of the country's most notorious one-man crime waves was back before a court in Auckland yesterday.
Antonie Ronnie Dixon was appealing his convictions for murder and mutilation carried out during a drug-fuelled crime spree in which he shot dead James Te Aute and attacked two women with a samurai sword.
Dixon was given a life sentence and minimum non-parole period of 20 years for the January 2003 rampage.
After attacking Simonne Butler and Renee Gunbie at Pipiroa, near Thames, Dixon drove to Hamilton and then Auckland, where he shot Mr Te Aute in a public car park.
The Crown case was that Dixon was "bad" and not "mad", and his execution of Mr Te Aute was intentional - carried out to draw police to him after telling an officer it would be "suicide by cop" and "another Aramoana".
Dixon's defence at trial was insanity but a jury found him guilty of murder. An alternative charge of manslaughter was not made available to the jury, another point heard by the Court of Appeal.
Dixon was acquitted of attempting to murder Ms Butler and Ms Gunbie but guilty of causing them grievous bodily harm. He cut off Ms Gunbie's hand; surgeons reattached Ms Butler's hand after he slashed them with a samurai sword.
Dixon was acquitted on two other attempted murder charges for shooting at police but found guilty on other counts, including holding a man hostage during a stand-off with police.
Much of Justice Judith Potter's summing-up in the March 2005 trial related to the issue of legal insanity.
Dixon's defence team of Barry Hart, Greg King and Anthony Trenwith yesterday argued the jury was not properly directed by Justice Potter, and that his sentence - life with minimum parole of 20 years - was excessive.
The defence said the case had been complex due to Dixon's personality disorder and methamphetamine use.
Dixon believed he was "morally justified" in killing Te Aute, because of his insane delusions, said Mr King.
The judge had raised the bar "too high" when directing the jury as to Dixon's intent during the crimes, the defence said.
Dixon did not know right or wrong as a result of using P, and the case involved overlapping issues around his mental health and drug use, said Mr King.
"By isolating the issue of methamphetamine use ... not cross-relating that it could have exacerbated underlying mental illness ... is a miscarriage of justice," he said.
He warned the courts would see more cases of people with mental issues who have abused methamphetamine.
"It's controversial and there are issues of social policy at play, but it's an issue that's going to come up more often where mentally ill persons are exposed to methamphetamine."
Mr Hart said Dixon clearly suffered from severe personality disorder - psychiatrists for both sides agreed he was a psychopath - and his upbringing was "absolutely horrendous".
He was tied to a clothes line and barked like a dog. His mother was a religious zealot and Dixon was brutalised and abused in his youth.
Mr Hart said these factors should have been taken into account at sentencing.
Crown Solicitor Simon Moore said Justice Potter instructed the jury to make an assessment of Dixon at the time of the offending, taking into account the complete evidence.
"The Crown's ... thrust was that this was a case of intentional killing," Mr Moore said in reference to the "execution" of Mr Te Aute.
Mr Moore said the summing-up was complex and insanity was not an easy concept to explain to a jury.
