On Thursday the High Court confirmed to
Stuff that no application had been filed, clearing the way for Dixon to be named.
Abigail Dougherty/Stuff According to charge sheets seen by
Stuff, the alleged offending by the 70-year-old was said to have occurred in the early 1970s in Auckland and Christchurch, against three boys under the age of 16. Dixon was excused from appearing at his first District Court and High Court appearances due to his medical condition and because he lived in Palmerston North. He was jailed in 2014 for two years and two months after admitting two charges of inducing a 9-year-old to do an indecent act in 1973, according to Radio New Zealand.
The other men deny the charges and are set to go on trial. Anyone with information can contact the Operation Beverly team on (09) 302 6624 or by emailing Operation.Beverly@Police.govt.nz.
STUFF
Auckland s Dilworth School leaders apologise after six men were arrested on charges of historical abuse at the boarding school. Operation Beverly More than 100 former Dilworth students have made complaints, alleging historical sexual offending. The alleged offending occurred as far back as the 1970s and as recently as the early 2000s. To date, a total of nine men in their 60s and 70s have been charged with a number of sex and drugs charges, including alleged sexual violation, indecent assault, sexual exploitation and supplying drugs.
Dilworth School housemaster dies before day in court stuff.co.nz - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from stuff.co.nz Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.
McIntosh fought to keep name suppression on health grounds and was granted interim name suppression by Judge Claire Ryan when he appeared in court in October 2020. However, at a subsequent hearing on November 9, he failed to supply the court with any evidence to justify continuing the order. The Crown opposed name suppression, saying suspicion could fall on other teachers if he was not named, and said more complainants could come forward if he was named. In his ruling, Judge David Ruth said a defendant could get name suppression at their first appearance if they showed there was an arguable basis but had to produce evidence at their second appearance if it was to continue.