Networked Knowledge
Kingsley Dixon Homepage

Authors of this page: Dr Robert N Moles and Bibi Sangha

Go to: Networked Knowledge - the Henry Keogh homepage
Go to: A state of Injustice - table of contents
Go to: Losing Their Grip - The Case of Henry Keogh - table of contents

[See also John Highfold 1983]

The Highfold and Dixon cases are similar – both cases involved the death of a prisoner and in both cases their clothing went missing and could not be examined. Both cases were the subject of a coroner’s inquest and subsequently were among the first cases dealt with by the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody held between 1987 and 1989.

Kingsley Dixon

Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody Report - Part One
Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody Report - Part Two

Kingsley Dixon was a 19 year old aboriginal man who was said to have been found dead in his cell in Adelaide Gaol on 9 July 1987.

3 February 1989 - Advertiser - Dixon's death in prison cell a "form of protest"
KIngsley Dixon would not have died in Adelaide Jail if prison officers had followed the rules. That is the thrust of the first findings of the Muirhead Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, released yesterday
2 February 1989 - Advertiser - Jail officers face criticism over Dixon's death
Prison officers today are expected to face severe criticism over circumstances surrounding the death of 19 year old Kingley Dixon in Adelaide Jail. But criminal charges are not expected to be recommended and the officers involved are unlikely to be names in findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody

[Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody – Report of the Inquiry into the death of Kingsley Dixon, 2 February 1989 – JH Muirhead Commissioner.
The Advertiser, 30 September 1987, 19 February 1988, and 3 February 1989]

Dr Manock performed an autopsy the next day and concluded that Dixon’s death had resulted from asphyxiation due to hanging.

Dixon had a slight bruise on his head. Dr Manock said that this was consistent with his having struck his head against the cell wall while hanging. He also said that there was no injury which could not be explained by the ‘mechanism of hanging’.

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody was told that Dixon’s clothes had ‘disappeared’ after being removed from his body – just as Highfold’s clothes had gone missing in 1983.
[The Advertiser, 15 April 1988]

Concerning the autopsy, the Commissioner noted in his report:

‘Comprehensive colour photographs were taken during the autopsy procedures which enable me to accept Dr Manock’s findings – particularly as to bruising or lack of bruising.’
[See Royal Commission Report (Kingsley Dixon), at 5.1]

This contrasts with the situation in the Keogh case where colour photographs were not taken in 1994

The Commissioner also remarked that an issue had arisen over a request by Dixon’s family to delay the initial autopsy until an independent pathologist could be present – a request that had been denied. He concluded:

‘Whilst no doubt the presence of an independently appointed pathologist may be desired and may be of comfort to relatives, the critical importance of an early autopsy cannot be over-emphasised.’

This is a most interesting remark. It downplays the value of the presence of a second pathologist, in contrast to the principle of independent checking of observations promoted by Judge Shannon in the Splatt Royal Commission some four years earlier. Such independent corroboration would have been of assistance in the autopsies in the ‘Baby Deaths’ cases and in the Keogh case, for example. The emphasis on the importance of an early autopsy is worth noting in the context of the Akritidis case, the Marshall case and even the Keogh case.

Top of Page