But a Supreme Court decision issued yesterday may have finally put the ''Tindallgate'' matter to rest.
Dixon came to international attention in September 2011 after he uploaded CCTV footage to YouTube of former England rugby player Mike Tindall, husband of the Queen's granddaughter Zara Phillips, allegedly cavorting in a Queenstown bar with a woman.
That alleged incident occurred while the English team were based in the resort during the New Zealand Rugby World Cup.
Dixon attempted, unsuccessfully, to sell the footage to overseas media before eventually posting it on the video-sharing site, which led to him being charged under the Crimes Act with dishonestly accessing the computer system of the Queenstown bar where he worked as a bouncer - a charge he denied.
In April 2013 he was found guilty by an Invercargill District Court jury of dishonestly obtaining property and in August that year he was sentenced by Judge Kevin Phillips to four months' community detention and 300 hours' community service.
However, Dixon appealed that to the Court of Appeal. During a hearing in Wellington last February his then lawyer, David More, argued the conviction was incorrect and the sentence excessive.
In respect of the conviction, Mr More said the digital footage copied by Dixon was not property, but ''electronic work'', contending that did not fall into the definition of ''property'' under the Crimes Act.
The Court of Appeal agreed in regard to that, quashing the conviction for obtaining property and replacing it with a conviction of dishonestly obtaining a benefit.
However, it rejected the appeal of his sentence.
Dixon then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which issued its decision yesterday.
The Supreme Court agreed the lower court had erred - but not to Dixon's benefit, unanimously dismissing the appeal.
The court held Judge Phillips was right to find the digital files were ''property'' and the Court of Appeal was wrong to quash the original conviction.
It considered the data files at issue were identifiable, were capable of being owned and transferred and had an economic value, so they fell within both the popular and legal meanings of ''property''.
In reinstating the original conviction, the court said it was ''satisfied that it is a more natural interpretation of [the law] to say Mr Dixon took `property' when he acquired the digital files, than it is to say that he acquired a 'benefit'''.
Before the Supreme Court hearing, Dixon dismissed his counsel and presented submissions for himself. He focused on errors that he said the trial judge had made, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The Supreme Court's decision said it had considered whether his trial had miscarried and found it had not.
''The court has found that Mr Dixon had the opportunity to put his explanation for his conduct before the jury and there is no risk of a miscarriage of justice resulting from the way the case was left to the jury by trial counsel or the trial judge.''
Dixon could not be contacted for comment yesterday.
