Former high school teacher and rugby league player Chris Dawson has been unsuccessful in his appeal against his murder conviction.
In August 2022, Chris Dawson was found guilty of his first wife’s murder.
His first wife Lynette Dawson (nee Simms) went missing in 1982, and has not been found since. She left behind their two young daughters Shanelle and Sherryn, then aged four and two.
Her disappearance occurred in the following suspicious circumstances:
→ Chris and Lynette Dawson had marital problems and attended marriage counselling the day before her disappearance.
→ Chris Dawson was having an affair with a teenage girl (JC), who moved in two days after his wife’s disappearance
→ there was evidence at the trial that Chris Dawson had expressed interest in hiring a hitman to murder his wife
→ there was evidence at the trial that Chris Dawson had committed domestic violence against Lynette Dawson
→ there was evidence at the trial that Chris Dawson detested Lynette Dawson and had spoken about leaving her
→ Dawson claimed his wife Lynette had called him several times and she had used her bank card twice, but no-one else she knew had heard from her
→ Chris Dawson failed to report his wife’s disappearance to police until six weeks later.
In 2001, the first coronial inquest led to findings that Lynette Dawson had been murdered and that her killer was Chris Dawson. The coroner recommended charges be laid.
In February 2003, another coronial inquest was held. Coroner Carl Milovanovich concluded that Chris Dawson had murdered Lynette Dawson and also recommended charges be laid.
The then-Director of Public Prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery QC refused to prosecute believing there was not enough evidence.
After a marathon judge-only trial, NSW Supreme Court judge Ian Harrison found Dawson guilty of murdering his first wife. He was sentenced to 24 years imprisonment.
s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) relevantly provides:
“The court on any appeal … against conviction shall allow the appeal if it is of opinion that the verdict of the jury should be set aside on the ground that it is unreasonable, or cannot be supported, having regard to the evidence, or that the judgment of the court of trial should be set aside on the ground of the wrong decision of any question of law, or that on any other ground whatsoever there was a miscarriage of justice, and in any other case shall dismiss the appeal”.
The proviso to s 6 provides that:
“the court may, notwithstanding that it is of opinion that the point or points raised by the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant, dismiss the appeal if it considers that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.”
The grounds of Appeal were:
→ that the judge should have given himself a warning regarding the delay in the prosecution being brought (ground 1)
→ that the trial judge erred “in his use of lies as implied admissions” (ground 2 and 3)
→ that the verdict was unreasonable (ground 4(i)), and
→ that the “trial judge’s reasoning [was] illogical or clearly mistaken”(ground 4(ii))
In May, Court of Appeal president Julie Ward, sitting with judges Anthony Payne and Christine Adamson, heard the appeal over three days. Dawson’s legal team argued that a miscarriage of justice occurred at trial because NSW Supreme Court judge Ian Harrison found beyond reasonable doubt that he did not receive a telephone call from Lyn at the Northbridge Baths on January 9, 1982, and that Lyn was dead by that afternoon.
Media reporting of comments made from the Bench during the appeal hearing were not encouraging for Dawson. For instance, Justice Adamson said JC’s evidence had been independently corroborated. “She was very, very significantly corroborated on pretty much everything that mattered, except the hitman”.
Today, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The result of this decision is that it is likely Dawson will spend the rest of his life in jail.
As to ground 1, the court reviewed the 7 categories of evidence in respect of which Dawson claimed he was subject to a “significant forensic disadvantage” as a result of the delay.
Some categories were not relevant as the judge, in any event, rejected the evidence. [107] In other cases, the disadvantage suffered was not truly as a result of the delay [127] or it was “difficult to discern how the availability of such records would have assisted [Dawson].” [128]
This ground was dismissed.
Grounds 2 and 3 turned on the difference between lies which evidence a defendant’s guilt (Edwards lies) and lies which are relevant to a defendant’s credit (Zoneff lies). [134]
Here, the court was satisfied that the trial judge had fallen into error, in that he had “used statements and omissions by the applicant as Edwards lies which were not relied on as such by the Crown”. As such, this ground was made out.
As to the unreasonable verdict (ground 4(i)), after conducting a detailed review of the evidence, Adamson JA was “not persuaded that the verdict of guilty of murder was unreasonable.” Her Honour found that “None of the arguments advanced… causes me to doubt the applicant’s guilt of murder.” [376]
Ground 4(ii), essentially, turned on “whether the trial judge’s reasons for finding that the Northbridge Baths phone call was excluded beyond reasonable doubt revealed illogical or clearly mistaken reasoning” [379]
This related to the finding, very early on in the judgment, that Dawson’s account of the call was a lie. This finding came after “manifestly insufficient” evidence had been set out to justify that finding. [384]
Adamson JA found that, whilst the argument out by Dawson’s counsel had a “superficial attraction” [385], it was important to note that “a verdict judgment can only proceed word by word and sentence by sentence.”
In those circumstances, this ground was not made out.
Whilst error was found on grounds 2 and 3, Adamson JA found that the proviso should apply, and the appeal should be dismissed. This was, in particular, because Dawson’s lies “were superfluous to the Crown case, as was demonstrated by the fact that they were not relied upon at trial in opening address.”
Author adminPosted on Categories Criminal law