KEY POINTS:
The jury deciding the fate of P-fuelled samurai swordsman Antonie Dixon was under police protection for the final two weeks of the retrial.
The revelation is one more twist in a case that has dominated headlines, not just for the gruesome nature of Dixon's actions, but for the
way it has brought the perils of the drug P into the public consciousness.
In the wake of Friday's second guilty verdict against the 40-year-old, the Herald on Sunday can reveal that for the last fortnight of the five-week murder trial, undercover officers followed the 11 jury members from the High Court in Auckland to their homes once court had adjourned.
Wide-ranging suppression orders prevent publication of further details about why police took such extraordinary steps to protect jury members, but sources have confirmed the jurors hearing evidence against Dixon did not know they were under police surveillance.
They were also not told why a fellow juror was discharged from service on July 17, another matter covered by extensive suppression orders.
Friday's guilty verdict on all eight counts followed five weeks of bizarre testimony and complex legal arguments around insanity, provocation, self-defence and lack of intent.
The charges relate to a night in January 2003 when Dixon shot dead father-of-three James Te Aute in a "hail of bullets".
Earlier that day, fuelled by P, he had embarked on what the prosecution described as a trail "of death and destruction", attacking friends Renee Gunbie and Simonne Butler with a samurai sword, inflicting multiple wounds and totally or partially severing their hands.
Dixon has been boasting of his feats on a MySpace page set up in his name by a friend. The samurai swordsman goes under the handle "ToNy DixOn AkA SaMaRi Sword".
On the website Dixon says: "I'm a real down to earth guy thats had alot of problems in my life since birth. I am a complicated guy, theres too much to tell. Either love me or hate me but either way im me. Yeah its true it was me that cut the two girls but dat was a long time ago i have changed i just want a good life from now on and another chance."
Dixon had been serving a life sentence with a minimum non-parole period of 20 years, but the conviction was quashed last year following a Court of Appeal ruling. Until Friday's verdict, that too was covered by blanket suppression orders.
The reason for the retrial related to errors in the way Justice Judith Potter directed jurors during her summing up at the first trial in 2005.
The Court of Appeal found the High Court judge did not properly instruct the jury on the law relating to insanity and failed to assist the jury on how intoxication could have affected any mental disorder Dixon may have had. Justice Potter had also failed to offer the jury the option of finding Dixon guilty of manslaughter.
Dixon is in the Auckland Central Remand Centre awaiting sentence on Friday. His lawyer, Barry Hart, said he would file another appeal following what he claimed were "deficiencies in the summing up and other matters" in the retrial.
If Hart's appeal is successful, a third trial will be required.
Notwithstanding the cost of the second trial and any possible appeal, the legal aid bill for Dixon has already reached $210,000.
Crown prosecutor Simon Moore told the Herald on Sunday he was unaware jurors in the case had been under surveillance. Moore said he was also confident Hart would not be successful with his appeal.
Justice Hugh Williams had been careful in the way he had summed up, presenting jurors with an unprecedented 55 pages of written material to consider. He had gone through the elements of each charge at length, and the elements of self-defence and provocation that Dixon had been asserting on the murder count.
He had also discussed the issue of insanity at length, which could be used as a defence if the jury had agreed with the Crown's case. Moore also defended Justice Potter's handling of the earlier case. "This was a very complex summing up."
Hart said that while he did not want to advance the grounds of the appeal for now, they were "substantial" and had been endorsed by a number of "very experienced lawyers".
"The real question is whether he got a fair trial. If there were inadequacies in the summing up, we may have to go again, however unpalatable that may be," Hart said.