R v Dawson - [2022] NSWDC 413

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2022] NSWDC 413
Hearing dates: 15 June 2022 – 20 June 2022
Crown submissions received: 24 July 2022
Defence submissions received: 14 August 2022
Date of orders: 14 September 2022
Decision date: 14 September 2022
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Grant DCJ
Decision:
I find the accused guilty.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-alone trial – reckless grievous bodily harm – causation – definition of recklessness – consciousness of guilt – whether a plea to one count can be used as evidence in proof of plea to another count – Crown application to reopen its case – discharge or a firearm – shortened firearm – sawn-off shortened shotgun – firearm held with one hand – accused’s finger on the trigger – expert evidence – trigger-pull of the firearm – whether the act of the accused is a substantial or significant cause or contributing factor to the injury – guilty verdict

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Criminal Procedure Act 1986
Evidence Act 1995

Cases Cited:
Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250
Hansford v McMillan [1976] VR 743
Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209
Lawrence v R (1981) 38 ALR 1
R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400
R v Bastin [1971] Crim L R 529
R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498
Shaw v R (1952) 85 CLR 365

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Rex
Joseph Dawson
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms M Aresh, solicitor advocate (Crown)
Mr D Pace (Accused)
Solicitors:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)

File Number(s): 2021/00122059
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Introduction

On 1 May 2021 and leading in to the early hours of 2 May 2021, five young men, Joseph Dawson, Luke Coughlan, Samuel Doyle, James Williams and Jack Steele had a big night out in Albury. They painted the town red. They drank a lot of alcohol and consumed drugs.
After the pubs and clubs closed, they went to the accused’s unit to continue partying. Thereafter, the folly of youth came into being.
Dawson produced a shortened shotgun. While being held by Dawson, it discharged at close range into Coughlan’s face. He had a significant blast injury to the left side of his face and jaw. His left jawbone was shattered. There was laceration of surrounding muscles, blood vessels and glands and loss of teeth attached to the left jaw.
Luke Coughlan recalls waking up at the Albury Base Hospital. He did not know why he was there. He initially thought he had been in a car accident.
Mr Dawson was charged with the following:

on 2 May 2021, at Albury in the State of New South Wales, did possess a loaded firearm at Unit 6, 693 Holmwood Cross, Albury, so as to endanger the life of another person contrary to section 93G(1)(a)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1900, and,

on 2 May 2021, at Albury in the State of New South Wales, did cause grievous bodily harm to Luke Coughlan and was…

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 R v Dawson

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson [2022] NSWDC 413
Case: [2022] NSWDC 413
Decision Date: 14 September 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dawson was heard by a judge alone in the court, where the central dispute revolved around allegations of reckless grievous bodily harm. The accused, Dawson, was found to have discharged a shortened firearm, specifically a sawn-off shotgun, in a manner that was potentially reckless. The firearm was held with one hand, and Dawson's finger was on the trigger at the time of the discharge. The core legal issues addressed by the court included the definition of recklessness in this context, the assessment of causation regarding the injury, and whether a plea to one count could be used as evidence in proving another count. Furthermore, the court had to consider a Crown application to reopen its case.

In examining the legal issues, the court first focused on determining the level of recklessness that constituted the crime. It was crucial to establish whether Dawson was consciously aware of the risk associated with his actions. Additionally, the court had to assess if the act of discharging the firearm was a substantial or significant cause or contributing factor to the injury suffered by the victim. The court also deliberated on the admissibility of a plea made in one count as evidence in proving another count. Finally, the court addressed the Crown's application to reopen its case to introduce additional evidence.

The court concluded that Dawson's actions met the definition of recklessness as he was consciously aware of the risk associated with discharging the firearm. The court found that the act of discharging the firearm was a substantial and significant cause of the victim's injury. The expert evidence provided on the trigger-pull of the firearm was considered crucial in establishing the causation. The court ruled that the plea to one count could be used as evidence for another count, reinforcing the recklessness of Dawson's actions. The Crown's application to reopen its case was granted, allowing the introduction of additional evidence that supported the guilty verdict.

Ultimately, the court found Dawson guilty of the charges. The detailed analysis of the recklessness, causation, and admissibility of the plea evidence led to this conclusion. The court's decision was based on the substantial evidence presented, including expert testimony and the Crown's successful application to reopen its case.

Orders

Orders of the court

I find the accused guilty.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Dawson [2022] NSWDC 413
Hearing dates:	15 June 2022 – 20 June 2022 Crown submissions received: 24 July 2022 Defence submissions received: 14 August 2022
Date of orders:	14 September 2022
Decision date:	14 September 2022
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Grant DCJ
Decision:	I find the accused guilty.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judge-alone trial – reckless grievous bodily harm – causation – definition of recklessness – consciousness of guilt – whether a plea to one count can be used as evidence in proof of plea to another count – Crown application to reopen its case – discharge or a firearm – shortened firearm – sawn-off shortened shotgun – firearm held with one hand – accused’s finger on the trigger – expert evidence – trigger-pull of the firearm – whether the act of the accused is a substantial or significant cause or contributing factor to the injury – guilty verdict
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Evidence Act 1995
Cases Cited:	Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250 Hansford v McMillan [1976] VR 743 Haoui v R [2008] NSWCCA 209 Lawrence v R (1981) 38 ALR 1 R v Amanatidis [2001] NSWCCA 400 R v Bastin [1971] Crim L R 529 R v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 Shaw v R (1952) 85 CLR 365
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Rex Joseph Dawson
Representation:	Counsel: Ms M Aresh, solicitor advocate (Crown) Mr D Pace (Accused) Solicitors: Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Jamieson Criminal Law (Accused)
File Number(s):	2021/00122059
Publication restriction:	Nil