Man in date-rape case granted bail

A man who choked and sexually assaulted a woman who had been given the daterape drug has been ordered released on bail pending his appeal of his conviction.

In December, a provincial court judge found Kenneth Edward Dixon, 45, guilty of sexually assaulting the victim, who can only be identified by the initials S.E. due to a publication ban, following an incident at his auto-repair shop on Nov. 28, 2014.

In the early morning hours Dixon had picked up the complainant at the request of Glen Bird, his co-accused, after Dixon had replaced Bird’s tires, which had been slashed earlier that evening.

The complainant, who was upset, afraid and wet, arrived at the shop and spent time with both men. Court heard that Dixon’s offence involved him choking her and forcing himself upon her despite her repeated attempts to stop him. Dixon had earlier gone along with Bird administering to S.E. the drug GHB, a noxious substance commonly known as the date-rape drug.

The accused pleaded not guilty, claiming that he believed the victim had consented to sex, but the judge found Dixon guilty of one count of sexual assault and sentenced him to two years in prison. Bird was convicted of both sexual assault and administering GHB.

Dixon claims in his appeal that the judge made errors, including finding that his police statement was voluntary and failing to adequately assist him during the trial.

He sought to be re-released on bail, arguing that he had previously abided by his terms of bail and that it would be unfair to keep him behind bars because if he wasn’t granted interim judicial release, he might serve out most of his jail term before the appeal could be heard.

The Crown opposed Dixon’s release on bail, arguing that the public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined.

In her ruling, B.C. Court of Appeal Justice Anne McKenzie noted that there were concerns about public safety as it was a serious offence and the facts of the crime were alarming. She also found that there were no indicators that Dixon was a flight risk, and that the grounds of appeal were not frivolous.