Dawson v The King - [2025] NSWCCA 85

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dawson v R [2025] NSWCCA 85
Hearing dates: 31 March 2025
Date of orders: 06 June 2025
Decision date: 06 June 2025
Before: Stern JA at [1];
Hamill J at [96];
McNaughton J at [137]
Decision:
(1)   Extend time to file the notice of appeal.
(2)   Grant leave to appeal.
(3)   Dismiss the appeal.

Catchwords:
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — whether trial judge erred in failing to take into account evidence relevant to the issue of the date sexual intercourse occurred other than with respect to the credibility of the complainant — where trial judge did not so err
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — whether trial judge erred regarding application of burden and standard of proof — where trial judge was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant’s guilt — where trial judge did not so err
CRIME — Appeals — Appeal against conviction — Unreasonable verdict — whether verdict of guilty of one charge of carnal knowledge by a teacher following trial by judge alone was reasonable — where evidence as a whole sufficient in nature and quality to eliminate any reasonable doubt as to the applicant’s guilt — where verdict not unreasonable

Legislation Cited:
Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW), s 15A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 73
Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 132

Cases Cited:
Coughlan v The Queen (2020) 267 CLR 654; [2020] HCA 15
Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25
Dawson v R [2024] NSWCCA 98
Director of Public Prosecutions v Benjamin Roder (a pseudonym) [2024] HCA 15; 98 ALJR 644
Douglass v The Queen [2012] HCA 34; (2012) 86 ALJR 1086
HO v The King [2023] NSWCCA 245
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63
Passmore v R [2023] NSWCCA 65
Pell v The Queen (2020) 268 CLR 123; [2020] HCA 12
R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 1131
Xu v R [2023] NSWCCA 93

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Dawson (Applicant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
SJ Odgers SC (Applicant)
H Roberts SC with E Jones (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2019/191658
Publication restriction:
Section 578A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) and s 15A of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) prevent the publication of the complainant’s name and any matter which is likely to lead to her identification. Section 15A(1)(b) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act also applies so as to prohibit publication of any matter which could identify a number of other witnesses in the proceedings (including the witnesses who are identified in Confidential Annexure A).

On 16 April 2025, pursuant to s 7(b) of the Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) (the Act), and on the basis of the ground in s 8(1)(d) of the Act, the Court ordered that the disclosure…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dawson v The King

Details

AGLC: Dawson v The King [2025] NSWCCA 85
Case: [2025] NSWCCA 85
Decision Date: 06 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the appellant, Dawson, appealed against his conviction for a charge of carnal knowledge by a teacher, arguing that the trial judge made several errors during the trial. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant contended that the trial judge failed to properly consider evidence relevant to the date the sexual intercourse occurred, apart from assessing the credibility of the complainant. He also argued that the judge erred in his understanding of the burden and standard of proof, and that the verdict of guilty was unreasonable given the evidence presented.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his handling of the evidence regarding the date of the sexual intercourse, in his understanding of the burden and standard of proof, and whether the verdict of guilty was unreasonable. The court examined the trial judge's handling of the evidence, including whether he properly considered the evidence apart from assessing the complainant's credibility. The court also assessed the trial judge's understanding of the burden and standard of proof, and whether the evidence as a whole was sufficient to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. The court concluded that the trial judge did not err in any of these respects, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty.

The High Court found that the trial judge did not err in his consideration of the evidence, as he had taken into account all relevant evidence, including evidence that was not dependent on the credibility of the complainant. The court further found that the trial judge correctly applied the burden and standard of proof, and was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant's guilt. Finally, the court held that the verdict of guilty was not unreasonable, as the evidence as a whole was of a nature and quality sufficient to eliminate any reasonable doubt about the appellant's guilt. The appeal was thus dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction be dismissed and that the conviction and sentence of the appellant stand as originally determined by the trial judge.

Orders