'Tindallgate' bouncer granted appeal

Jonathan Dixon. Photo / Otago Daily Times

Crown Law has urged the Supreme Court to accept ''Tindallgate'' bouncer Jonathan Dixon's appeal, to fix a precedent-setting decision about stolen digital files.

Without the hearing, parliamentary intervention would be needed to overturn the Court of Appeal decision, which Crown Law says had broad ramifications and was ''wrong''.

Dixon was at the centre of a 2011 Rugby World Cup media storm over a Queenstown bar's security footage which showed then England captain Mike Tindall - who was later sacked - appearing to flirt with an old flame.

Before Dixon posted the footage on the internet, he was hawking the footage - on behalf of his employers, he claims - to British tabloid newspapers for potentially vast sums of money.

The Court of Appeal quashed Dixon's original conviction of accessing a computer and dishonestly obtaining ''property'' and replaced it with a charge of obtaining a ''benefit''.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court gave the right of appeal to Dixon, who said he was the victim of a miscarriage of justice and had been denied the right to a fair trial.

Crown Law said Dixon was properly convicted and there was no miscarriage of justice.

However, in a submission seen by the Otago Daily Times, lawyer David Boldt said a hearing was appropriate to test the Court of Appeal's principal conclusion, that digital files are not property.

It is not open to the Crown to take its own appeal.

The decision was ''wrong'' and had already caused difficulties in other cases, he said.

Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal cited the Dixon case in quashing the convictions against James Watchorn who, it was alleged, dishonestly downloaded data from his former employer TAG Oil's computer system.

The court said the Dixon and Watchorn decisions ''have identified some drafting issues and inconsistencies in some Crimes Act provisions. We respectfully suggest that consideration be given to remedial legislation.''

In his Supreme Court submission, Mr Boldt said without a Supreme Court hearing to fully consider the property issue, certain Crimes Act charges would struggle to get as far as the Court of Appeal.

''Millions of digital files of all kinds are bought, sold, licensed, rented (and sometimes stolen) every day, and purchasers acquire a valuable and alienable asset.

''The court's decision [in Dixon] does not pay sufficient regard to the ubiquity of digital media and the role they play in contemporary life.''

Speaking from Christchurch, Dixon told the Otago Daily Times he wanted a retrial to clear his name. He claimed his Court of Appeal trial lawyer ''withheld'' evidence during the Appeal Court hearing.

''If I win on that property thing, everyone's going to look at me and think, 'obviously you're some thief that got away with it - you just won because of red tape or there was a glitch in the matrix or something'.

''I want to be able to put my case forward so they can see that maybe the jury would have thought differently or come up with a more favourable verdict if this evidence was presented.''

The hearing is expected to be held next month.