R v Dawson

[2022] NSWSC 1131

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 1131

Hearing dates:

9, 11, 16-20, 23-26, 30, 31 May; 7-10, 14-17, 20-22, 24, 27-30 June; 4-8,11 July 2022

Date of orders:

30 August 2022

Decision date:

30 August 2022

Jurisdiction:

Common Law - Criminal

Before:

Harrison J

Decision:

Christopher Michael Dawson found guilty of the murder of Lynette Joy Dawson

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – murder – trial by judge alone – circumstantial case – where wife of the accused disappeared without trace in January 1982 – where the body of the deceased has never been recovered – whether circumstantial evidence established that her death caused by the accused

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 133

Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 101, 165, 165B

Cases Cited:

Binns v R [2017] NSWCCA 280

De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48

Kanaan & Ors v R [2006] NSWCCA 109

Meakin v R [2018] NSWCCA 288

R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 877

R vQaumi & Qaumi (No 12) [2017] NSWSC 134

R v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701; [2002] NSWCCA 455

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Regina (Crown)
Christopher Michael Dawson (Accused)

Representation:

Counsel:
C M Everson SC and E Blizard (Crown)
P David (Accused)

Solicitors:
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Greg Walsh & Co Solicitors (Accused)

File Number(s):

2018/372527

Publication restriction:

Nil

Judgment

1. HIS HONOUR: Christopher Michael Dawson is charged that on or about 8 January 1982 at Bayview or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales he did murder Lynette Joy Dawson. Mr Dawson has pleaded not guilty to that charge. His trial before me, sitting as a judge alone, commenced on 9 May 2022.

Background

2. The following matters are referred to as a convenient but brief summary of the way in which the Crown puts its case. Some of them are uncontroversial but not all of them. My reference to these matters in short form is not to be taken as a finding that they have been established.

3. Mr Dawson and Lynette Dawson married on 26 March 1970. They were then 21 years old. As at 8 January 1982, the Dawsons were living at 2 Gilwinga Drive, Bayview with their two daughters. Mr Dawson was then a teacher at Cromer High School. Lynette Dawson was a trained nurse working at the Warriewood Childcare Centre.

4. JC commenced as a student at Cromer High School in 1976. She completed her Higher School Certificate at that school in 1981 when she was 17 years of age. From time to time during 1980 and 1981, JC worked as a babysitter for the Dawsons’ girls at Gilwinga Drive. JC and Mr Dawson commenced a sexual relationship at some time during 1980 or 1981 and JC, who was at that time experiencing difficulties living at home with her mother and stepfather, moved into the Dawsons’ house for a brief period late in 1981.

5. On or about 22 December 1981, Mr Dawson and JC travelled north to Queensland. Lynette Dawson remained behind with their daughters in the matrimonial home. The Crown alleges that Mr Dawson was hopeful of starting a new life with JC. However, JC became ill and missed her family. They returned to Sydney on Christmas Day. JC told Mr Dawson that she wanted to end their relationship. Mr Dawson did not want that to happen.

6. In early 1982, JC travelled to South West Rocks for a holiday with her sisters where she met up with some of her school friends. She stayed in a caravan park. At Mr Dawson’s request, JC telephoned him every day, reverse charges, from a public phone.

7. The Crown alleges that on the weekend after JC went away, Mr Dawson, either alone or with the assistance or involvement of another person or other persons, murdered his wife. The Crown also alleges that Mr Dawson then or later disposed of her body at an unknown location, once again possibly with assistance from another person or other persons. Lynette Dawson’s body has never been located. The Crown contends that I should be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that she is dead.

8. Within the week following 8 January 1982, Mr Dawson drove to South West Rocks and collected JC. He drove her, and her sister, back to Sydney. Not long after that, JC moved into the home at 2 Gilwinga Drive, Bayview where she and Mr Dawson commenced living in an intimate relationship. Mr Dawson initially maintained that his wife had called him on several occasions after 8 January, telling him that she was away only temporarily. Mr Dawson never asserted in terms that his wife had contacted him to say she was not returning. According to Mr Dawson, in his last contact with her Lynette Dawson said that she was feeling stronger, she was happy and not to worry about her.

9. The Crown alleges that Mr Dawson was motivated to kill his wife in order to be able to enter into what has been described as an unfettered relationship with JC. Mr Dawson and JC continued living together at Gilwinga Drive with Mr Dawson’s children, up until the time they were married there in 1984. They later moved to Queensland. JC gave birth to their daughter in 1985. JC separated from Mr Dawson in March 1990 and their marriage was dissolved later that year.

10. Mr Dawson was not arrested and charged with the murder of his wife until 2018.

Comment

11. Before Mr Dawson can be convicted of murder, the Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt all the essential ingredients that constitute the charge. In short, the Crown must establish beyond reasonable doubt that Lynette Dawson is dead and that her death was caused by Mr Dawson’s conscious voluntary act carried out or committed by him with an intention to kill her. These are not the only things that must be proved by the Crown beyond reasonable doubt to justify a verdict of guilty.

12. The Crown case is wholly circumstantial. The inference of guilt argued for by the Crown is drawn from a combination of the range of circumstantial facts adduced during the course of the trial. The individual facts, some more than others, gained cogency from other facts in the case. It follows that because the Crown case rests upon circumstantial evidence, I cannot return a verdict of guilty unless the circumstances are such as to be inconsistent with any reasonable possibility other than Mr Dawson’s guilt.

13. Ordinarily, the time at which an offence is alleged to have been committed is an immaterial particular. In the present case, however, and putting aside for the moment evidence that suggests that Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 January 1982, proof by the Crown that Lynette Dawson died on or about 8 January 1982 is an indispensable link in the chain of reasoning upon which the Crown relies. The Crown must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Lynette Dawson’s date of death was on or about 8 January 1982, which description includes the early morning of the following day. If there exists a reasonable possibility that Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 January 1982, Mr Dawson is entitled to be acquitted of the charge of murder. As will shortly appear, this matter is considered first.

14. However, as with my consideration of every aspect of the evidence in this trial, it is important to bear in mind at all times that in a circumstantial case such as this, inferences that appear to arise from particular circumstances, both in support of the Crown case and in derogation of it, should only finally be assessed having regard to all of the other circumstances that are in evidence. The circumstantial nature of the evidence in this case makes it clear that it must be considered and assessed as a whole, and not in what the authorities regularly refer to as a piecemeal fashion. One of the consequences of that, for present purposes, is that particular circumstances sometimes require consideration in more than one context. Moreover, but in a related sense, evidence that appears to be unimportant when looked at in isolation may achieve significance when other matters come to light. The reverse is equally true. This will become apparent in the course of these reasons. However, the following example may assist.

15. There is a wealth of evidence dealing with the events of Friday 8 January 1982. Part of that evidence demonstrates that Mr Dawson and Lynette Dawson attended marriage guidance counselling and that they returned to her workplace together holding hands and in good spirits. Evidence of events later in the evening suggests that Lynette Dawson was still in good spirits when she spoke to her mother by phone for the last time. The Crown relies upon this as evidence in support of an inference that Lynette Dawson was unlikely to have left the marriage voluntarily the following day because of matrimonial difficulties.

16. In contrast, Mr Dawson has contended that other evidence suggests that Lynette Dawson had some form of emotional episode that evening which tipped her over the edge and confirmed in her mind her decision to leave. There was also evidence from one of Lynette Dawson’s work colleagues that upon return from counselling that day, she noticed bruising on Lynette Dawson’s neck and that Lynette Dawson told her that they were caused by Mr Dawson who had put his hands around her throat in a lift on the way to see the psychologist when he said, “I’m only doing this once and if it doesn’t work I’m getting rid of you”. The Crown wishes to rely upon this material as evidence suggesting a violent predisposition on the part of Mr Dawson towards Lynette Dawson, as well as conduct consistent with his alleged motive to kill her. However, although not embraced by Mr Dawson as truthful evidence, a matter to which I must later return, the choking incident on one view could conversely support Mr Dawson’s response to the Crown case by suggesting that it is wholly consistent with Lynette Dawson having made a decision to leave her marriage to an unfaithful and violent man of her own accord.

17. Accordingly, within the space of less than twelve hours on the same day, there is evidence apparently supporting an inference favourable to Mr Dawson that Lynette Dawson voluntarily decided to disappear because the marriage was in tatters, she was in an emotional state and Mr Dawson was violent. Conversely, the evidence could support an inference unfavourable to Mr Dawson that Lynette Dawson is unlikely to have made her own decision to leave because counselling appeared to have been beneficial, she was hopeful of restoring the relationship and Mr Dawson’s recent violence suggests something more sinister. Added to the difficulties is the fact that the “strangling incident” is capable of supporting either inference. This small example serves to demonstrate the wisdom that in a circumstantial case one must only draw ultimate inferences from the evidence as a whole.

was lynette dawson alive after 8 january 1982?

18. The Crown case is that Lynette Dawson was dead by no later than sometime on the morning of 9 January 1982. There is other evidence in three broad categories, any of which if accepted would establish that she was alive after that time. First, there are statements by Mr Dawson of him having spoken to Lynette Dawson by telephone both on 9 January 1982 and after that date. Secondly, there is evidence that Mr Dawson told others about Lynette Dawson using her bankcard to make purchases later that month. Thirdly, there is evidence of a series of people who claim they saw Lynette Dawson alive in 1982, 1983 and 1984 and possibly thereafter.

19. Before proceeding to refer to this material, the following should be noted. Mr Dawson embraces the evidence in these three categories to support the inference that Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 January 1982. If that is accepted, Mr Dawson must be acquitted of murder. That is for the fundamental reason that the Crown will not have proved the death of Lynette Dawson as charged in the indictment, nor will the Crown have eliminated as a reasonable possibility that she left 2 Gilwinga Drive, Bayview of her own accord. However, in order properly to assess the utility of these individual pieces of evidence, they must be considered in at least two important ways. First, does the evidence stand up as credible and reliable when taken in isolation. Secondly, if the evidence stands up as credible and reliable when taken in isolation, what probative strength does it retain having regard to the wealth of other circumstantial evidence in this trial. Once again, an example may assist to understand this issue.

20. As appears below, Peter Breese has given evidence that he saw Lynette Dawson in a particular location in Australia in the middle of 1984. The evidence, if accepted, supports the fact that Mr Breese was where he says he was at that time. There is no reason to reject the evidence for some extraneous reason, for example, because Mr Breese is demonstrably lying or mistaken about where he was when the alleged sighting is said to have been made. The question of whether the evidence should be accepted, after listening to it and any challenge to it, remains a live one. However, evidence of that sort, in a circumstantial case, can confidently be taken into the mix of all the evidence touching the question of whether Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 January 1982.

21. By contrast, evidence that a particular witness saw Lynette Dawson at a particular location in Australia would necessarily be rejected at the threshold if, for example, other evidence demonstrated that the witness was not even in Australia at the time. More subtle considerations may also attend the inquiry at this first stage, such as the age and capacities of the witness, the source of the evidence and whether the witness had or may have had a motive to lie or was clearly or arguably mistaken. However, provided the evidence in question is not fundamentally flawed necessitating prompt rejection, its true value must remain to be assessed having regard to the strength or otherwise of other circumstantial evidence relevant to the issue. I propose in what follows to indicate my findings about the first way each piece of evidence should be considered. However, the significance of the evidence as a circumstance touching the ultimate issue of Mr Dawson’s guilt must finally be considered in the light of all of the evidence as a whole.

Mr Dawson’s telephone calls with Lynette Dawson

22. These calls fall into two categories.

The Northbridge Baths

23. Mr Dawson’s record of interview with the police on 15 January 1991 contains his version of what occurred at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982. It is as follows:

Q10. Thank you. Chris, in January of 1982, your wife Lyn ah, left your family home ah, in. Ah, would you care to tell me now what transpired at that time, please?

A. Prior to my wife leaving me in January ’82, we had some matrimonial problems. Um, I went on a brief um, time away from home to, to try and clarify how I felt. I came back from um, a few days up here in Queensland. Lyn and I then went to marriage guidance to try and sort things out. After marriage guidance for a few days Lyn seemed um, disturbed by the results of that. She, we also at the same time had some guy erecting a shed or something who was tied up to some religious sect who um, Lyn sought some um, comfort from him so far as he was asking her come along to the meetings and getting her literature and all. On the Saturday, I had a part-time job at Northbridge Swimming Pool Baths. On that particular Saturday Lyn, had agreed with me that she was going to go over to the city markets to do shopping. I was to take our two daughters to the Northbridge Baths and she was going to go shopping and meet me back at the Baths in the afternoon. I dropped her down at Mona Vale bus stop in the morning, I went back and ah, we, my daughters and I had breakfast and then I went through to work with my girls. Lyn’s mother came through to Northbridge Baths. I obviously, I was expecting Lyn to come with her mother but, and when her mother came, I sort of, asking where my wife was. She said she didn’t know so we presumed she was still shopping and would meet me at work during the afternoon sometime. Um, the girl that worked in the shop called me over and said there was an STD phone call for me, she had taken the call. I went there, took the, the phone call, it was Lyn. She said she needed time away like I had had prior to um, that day and she’d ring me in a few days’ time after she’d had time to sort things out. I had um, the following few weeks I had similar phone calls from Lyn, more STD calls saying that she needed extra time, that she needed more time to sort it out. Then after about the third phone call she said she needed a lot more time, she didn’t know if she would be returning to me. Um, I had friends at Belrose um, Rugby League Club who worked for the police force. I asked them to try and help locate Lyn’s whereabouts. A friend of mine on the Central Coast told me she had seen Lyn in a car on the Central Coast. Um, a friend of mine, Ian Kennedy, who’s now moved to the Drug Squad in New South Wales and um, Detective...my twin brother’s, who is now deceased unfortunately um, he was also making enquiries. Um Lyn’s own brother’s a member, in the police force of New South Wales all of which were trying to find, making enquires to um, discover the exact location that Lyn was. Um, in fact my friends from Belrose told me that if they located her, although they weren’t supposed to tell me they would sort of let me know where she was so I could speak to her, but if she didn’t want to disclose her whereabouts, they um, said they couldn’t let me know where she was. For the remaining period after twelve months I was um, constantly in touch with the people I just mentioned to try and find and locate where Lyn was.”

Mr Dawson was not asked during the interview whether his daughters accompanied him on the drive with his wife to the Mona Vale bus stop. The evidence is otherwise silent about this. It did not figure in any submissions.

24. Mr Dawson’s earlier handwritten “Antecedent Report” dated 17 August 1982 referred to the Northbridge Baths incident as follows:

“Sat 9th Jan She seemed happy + had decided to go to the markets + meet me + the girls back at Northbridge Baths after 1200. I dropped her off at Mona Vale – everything seemed fine. Lyn rang the Baths about 300pm, she said she was with friends, not to worry – it was her turn and that she’d ring later that week. She rang the following Saturday and said she needed more time and wouldn’t return home until she felt happy to do so.”

25. In his statement dated 21 February 2001, Phillip Day said the following:

“7. At Christmas 1981 I did not receive the usual card from Chris and Lyn. Early in January 1982 I received a telephone call from Chris, who apologised for that omission and explained that he and Lyn were experiencing marital difficulties. Chris told me he wished to talk to me about those problems and we arranged to meet at Northbridge Pool on Saturday 9th January, 1982.

8. On Friday 8th January, 1982 I rang the home of Chris and Lyn to confirm those arrangements. I spoke only to Lyn, who told me that earlier that day she and Chris had attended counselling in respect of their marital problems. She undertook to tell Chris of my call, and that I would meet him at the pool.

9. On Saturday 9th January, 1982 I drove to Northbridge Pool, arriving there sometime between 2-3pm. Helena was already there, as were Chris and Lyn’s daughters [XD] and [YD].

10. I started to talk with Chris, who told me that he had been away around Christmas, and that he was keen to make the marriage work and to sort out the problems he and Lyn were having.

11. Shortly thereafter Chris was summoned to the pool office to answer a telephone call. When he returned he advised Helena and me that the call was from Lyn, who was going away for a few days ‘to sort herself out’.

12. Chris also said that Lyn had asked if I would drive Helena and the two little girls back to the Simms home. I did as Lyn had requested, while Chris stayed at the pool to finish his shift.

13. Helena and I did not discuss what had happened in front of [XD] and [YD] as we did not wish to upset them.

14. I maintained regular contact with Chris over the following weeks. On one or two such occasions I was advised by Chris that Lyn had telephoned. He also informed me that she had used her bankcard somewhere near to her home.

15. My observation of Chris at that time was that he was extremely upset by Lyn’s absence, and genuinely desired that she would soon return to her family.”

26. Mr Day elaborated on some things referred to in his statement in his evidence at a coronial inquest on 27 February 2003 as follows:

“Q. In your statement you describe what happened at the swimming pool and you say that shortly after you spoke with Chris about his keenness to make the marriage work and sort the problems between him and Lyn out, that he was summoned to the pool office to answer a telephone call, do you remember that?

A. That’s right, yes.

Q. Do you remember who summoned him to the telephone?

A. I honestly don’t.

Q. Would it have been do you think another staff member of the pool?

A. Probably yes.

Q. Do you know how long he was away at the pool office?

A. Twenty one years ago. Probably about ten minutes.

Q. It wasn’t an abnormally long time or short time?

A. No, ten minutes.

Q. What did he tell you?

A. He said that Lyn had rung to say that she was keen to get away and have some time to herself and would I mind take Helena Simms and [XD] and [YD] home to the Simms’ residence at Clovelly. He seemed quite calm about it. I didn’t question that because I knew he’d already been away for a few days around Christmas time to do a similar thing and I guess we’ve all gone away to sort ourselves out at various times of failing relationships or with those sort of problems. So he seemed quite, a little bit surprised but quite calm about it.

Q. Did he appear upset about that?

A. Not necessarily no. The impression I got was that he’d done that and probably it was right that she should do that, that Lyn should do that.

…

Q. Did Chris talk to you about the length of time that he expected Lyn to be away for?

A. He said a few days.

Q. And those words ‘a few days’ do you remember them today?

A. Yes.”

27. As with Mr Day, Helena Simms did not witness the telephone call. All she knew was what she was told by Mr Dawson. In her handwritten letter dated 21 August 1982 provided to the Mona Vale police, Mrs Simms wrote this:

“At 3pm he received a telephone call + came back to me on the seat visibly affected. It was an STD call from Lyn saying she needed some days to sort things out, was on the Central Coast with friends (no idea who it could have been) was alright. That was January 9^th.”

28. CB and JM, who worked at the Northbridge Baths in their teens, gave evidence in this trial. CB said this:

“The phone was on the counter near the entry way shutter … out of sight of the people standing on the other side of the shutter that was closed. There were two shutters, one was opened to take money across the counter. The next shutter was closed and that formed a screen between part of the counter and the outside area. That’s where the phone sat.”

29. Mr Dawson and his brother Paul are identical twins. CB conceded that she was unable to tell them apart. They both worked at the Northbridge Baths as lifeguards while she was employed there. CB gave evidence that she worked two or three shifts in the summer of 1981 to 1982. She went to primary school with JM who also worked there. It is possible that she worked there with JM but she has no clear recollection of doing so. She recalled one memorable phone call during that time, because it began with "three high pitched tones" that she termed "long distance pips", and she associated that with a phone call that originated from "out of the Sydney area". She said that the caller was female and asked to speak to one of the Dawsons. She did not remember whether it was Chris Dawson or his twin brother Paul. CB said in cross-examination that on this day that this woman called for one of the Dawson twins, the pool manager Col Stubbing was in attendance. She said that her recollection was that Mr Stubbing was standing very close to either Chris Dawson or Paul Dawson who she called over to take the call.

30. CB’s actual evidence of these matters was as follows:

"Q. You've told us that over the summer of 1981, 1982 you worked two or three shifts. Did you take any phone calls whilst you were working over those two or three shifts?

A. Yes.

Q. What do you remember about the phone call?

A. The one phone call I remember fairly clearly is that I picked the phone up and there were long distance pips. That's when a phone call comes from out of the Sydney area. It was long distance pips in those days, I think three high pitched tones. And a female person asked to speak with … it was one of the Dawsons. I don't remember who it was.

Q. Did the female identify themselves?

A. Quite likely, but I really can't remember.

Q. Is there anything about the voice you remember other than that it was the voice of a female?

A. No.

Q. So you said the female asked for one of the Dawsons?

A. Yes, they asked for a person and I got that person who was standing nearby, but I don't remember whether it was Chris or Paul. It was one of them.

Q. You said you don't remember if it was Chris or Paul. Did either Chris or Paul take the phone?

A. Yes."

31. She later gave this evidence:

"Q. The person on the other receiver, you remember distinctly it was a female voice?

A. I remember it was female, yeah.

Q. Do you recall the words that that person said to you?

A. No.

Q. You don't recall who she had asked for?

A. No. She must have said one of their names because I knew who the phone call was for.

Q. So trying to clarify this as best I can, is it fair to suggest she may have said words to the effect of: 'I want to speak to Chris Dawson' or 'Paul Dawson'? Is that a fair summary?

A. Yes. I don't even know if she used their surname. I just don't know.

Q. But you then called out to one of them, as you understand it?

A. Yes."

32. Significantly, CB gave the following evidence in cross-examination:

"Q. Do you recall, on the day that this phone call was received by you, whether he had left the baths at a certain time, that's Col?

A. Col?

Q. Yes.

A. No, he hadn't left that day. He was there."

33. In re-examination, this was clarified:

"Q. [CB], you may have said this and if you did I apologise. In terms of Col and his whereabouts the day you took this phone call, did you say that your recollection is that Col was there?

A. Yes. I only recall one occasion where he was not going to be present at the baths when I was working, and that was when he said he had to go to the dentist.

HIS HONOUR: The question asked you whether he was there. Is it your recollection that he was present near you when you took the phone call or do you understand that he was there working at the baths but not close to the location where you took the call or what is the position?

A. My recollection is that he was standing very close to either Chris or Paul who I called over to take the phone call, and they were talking together."

34. JM said she had no memory of working with CB. JM kept a diary at the time. Her entry for 9 January 1982 contains the following notation:

“Saturday 1982 Worked in shop 8 – 5.30 didn’t get any money because, as usual, Col left at 12.00 and Chris Dawson never pays.”

35. Consistently with the suggestion that Mr Stubbing did not work past noon on weekends, Mr Dawson himself told the police the following things in his 15 January 1991 interview:

“Q60. What was … your position at Northbridge Pool?

A. Um, lifeguard, superintendent, Northbridge Pools, do you know it?

Q61. No, I don’t.

A. It’s a very small tidal bath where … one fellow virtually owned it for twenty/thirty years.

Q62. Ah hmm.

A. I got to know it through, I was working at North Sydney Boys. I used to take kids down there for swimming. He decided he wanted Saturday afternoons and Sundays off. So I used to have an arrangement, I’d arrive there lunchtime on Saturday. Basically just take over, there’d be sort of young kids employed in the shop while I was sitting out watching the swimmers. I was just more or less lifeguard, supervision of …”

36. Having regard to this evidence I am unable to accept that the version of events at the Northbridge Baths suggesting Mr Dawson received an STD call from Lynette Dawson on the afternoon of 9 January 1982 could reasonably be true. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dawson's various representations that he spoke to Lynette Dawson by telephone on a call made to the Northbridge Baths on that day is a lie. My reasons for forming that view are as follows.

37. CB recalls that Mr Stubbing was there when the call came in. The Crown contends that this material means that if Mr Stubbing was talking to Chris Dawson or Paul Dawson on the day she took the call, it could not have been 9 January 1982. JM certainly worked there on the day but had no recollection of working with CB, although she conceded that she could have. Mr Stubbing did not work past noon that day. Moreover, Mr Day said he was there at the pool when Mr Dawson was called to the office. Mr Day did not arrive at the baths until after 2pm, by which time Mr Stubbing would have left. The only evidence that Mr Dawson received a call from Lynette Dawson comes from Mr Dawson.

38. JM said that when she worked at the baths, there were times when Col Stubbing was there but not always. JM’s diary entry for 9 January 1982, referred to earlier, indicates that Mr Stubbing was not at the Northbridge Baths on the afternoon of that day. JM had no recollection independently of the diary entry of working on that day. Her evidence also included the following:

“Q. Do you have any memory of taking a call for Chris Dawson on 9 January 1980? [sic, 1982]

A. No, I don't recall.”

39. CB’s evidence, which I accept, was that Mr Stubbing was present when the call was received, was standing close to either Chris Dawson or Paul Dawson “and they were talking together”. The caller did not identify herself. However, JM’s diary indicates that Mr Stubbing was not present at the baths on the afternoon of 9 January 1982. Accordingly, the evidence that CB received an STD call during one of her three shifts at the Northbridge Baths from an unidentified female caller who asked to speak to one of the Dawson brothers when Col Stubbing was also present need not be the subject of any doubt. On the contrary, the suggestion that it was received on 9 January 1982 must be wrong, as the serendipitously discovered diary entry penned by JM for that day makes clear. CB was not challenged concerning her recollection that Mr Stubbing was present. Moreover, CB could not say, and did not say, what date the call was received. It is possible that CB is mistaken about whether Mr Stubbing was present, but her evidence on that point was contextual and clear, and having regard to the absence of any challenge to its accuracy, or to her recollection generally, that possibility remains a matter of speculation or conjecture only. The evidence is also somewhat frail to the extent that the caller did not identify herself as Lynette Dawson, although having regard to the basis of my finding, that is not a matter of critical significance.

40. I should note that in characterising Mr Dawson’s representation that he spoke to Lynette Dawson by phone that day as a lie, I am not intending to suggest that Mr Day’s evidence that Mr Dawson told him that is also a lie. I accept that Mr Day has truthfully and reliably recalled what he was told. Helena Simms’ written references to what happened on that day are in a similar category. It has not been suggested otherwise. There is, however, no truth in Mr Dawson’s representations to Mr Day or later to the police that Lynette Dawson phoned him at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982.

41. Allowing for the fact that, notwithstanding my opinion, it may be thought that the Crown has not excluded as a reasonable possibility that CB could be mistaken about Col Stubbing being present, this evidence will later be reconsidered in the light of all the other circumstantial evidence in the case touching the question of whether Lynette Dawson is alive or dead.

Later telephone calls

42. No one apart from Mr Dawson has ever received a phone call from Lynette Dawson since she was last spoken to on the evening of Friday 8 January 1982. In contrast, Mr Dawson asserts that he received a number of phone calls from her. None of these phone calls was received within earshot of any other person. The Missing Person’s Report contains the following references to “circumstances”:

“Was dropped to shops at Mona Vale at 7am 9/1/82 by Husband – Contacted Husband on 9^th 10^th at NorthBridge Bath by STD call – BankCard indicated that she was at Warriewood on the 12^th – again called home on 15^th – stated that she needed more time to think – hasn’t been heard of since – May have gone to a religious organisation on the NORTH Coast.”

43. Helena Simms’ diary entries also refer to calls that she said Mr Dawson told her he had received from Lynette Dawson. In exhibit G, Mrs Simms records “9 January: Lyn phoned, left home”, “10 January: Lyn rang him not coming home” and “15 January: Lyn rang Chris. Can’t come home yet”.

44. Mrs Simms’ letter to the Mona Vale police contained the following reference:

“Sunday 10^th Lyn contacted Chris again saying to let Barbara at Warriewood Child Minding Centre know she would be off a week owing to illness. Chris reminded her to ring me + said she would contact Chris + myself on Wednesday 13^th.

…

Friday 15^th I had a call from Chris around tea time saying he had heard from Lyn. He couldn’t recall if there had been ‘PIPS’ but she said she was NORTH and needed more time, he got annoyed + said ‘How much more bloody time do you need?’ He asked her not to hang up as she said she wouldn’t come home if he spoke like that, Chris said ring your Mum + she said she would when she felt she could. He asked her to come home we all needed her + she said ‘I can’t’. That was the last time we had contact with her, all this conversation was relayed to me by Chris as soon as she had rung him.”

45. This can be compared with Mr Dawson’s references to phone calls in the Antecedent Report in which there is no reference to any call on 10 January 1982. Instead, the following is recorded:

“Sat 9^th Jan She seemed happy + had decided to go to the markets + meet me + the girls back at Northbridge Baths after 1200. I dropped her off at Mona Vale – everything seemed fine. Lyn rang the baths about 300pm, she said she was with friends, not to worry – it was her turn and that she’d ring later that week. She rang the following Saturday and said she needed more time and wouldn’t return home until she felt happy to do so.”

46. Despite Mr Dawson’s reference to Lynette Dawson being with friends, none has come forward to contact authorities about that. The Crown maintains that that is something that might reasonably have been expected given the large amount of media attention that this case has generated.

47. By the time of the Antecedent Report on 16 August 1982, Mr Dawson had discontinued any reference to the phone call on 10 January 1982. That position is maintained in his Family Court affidavit sworn on 28 April 1983 when he said this:

“During the first week following her vacation of the former matrimonial home, the respondent telephoned me and said to me words to the effect that she was going away to think things over and intended to return when she had sorted things out.”

48. By the time Mr Dawson was interviewed by the police in 1991, the number of phone calls had increased to “several”, as asserted in the following questions and answers:

“Q88. All right. Now you said earlier that you’d had numerous phone calls from Lyn after she left.

A Several phone calls.

Q89. I beg your pardon, several phone calls. How may [sic, many] phone calls would you estimate that you had from her?

A. Ah, four perhaps.

Q90. Four. And do you recall when those phone calls may have taken place?

A. No. I gave the dates to Mona Vale police. That would be an accurate record, apart from that I’ve kept no record of the dates that they were made.

Q91. Well, do you recall whether it was within a short space of time after her leaving or did some come in say months later?

A. No. The last phone call I had I think was within say two weeks or so of Lyn leaving.

Q92. Do you recall a phone call that I mentioned earlier where you got angry with her on the phone? She said if you spoke to her like that she wasn’t coming home.

A. Yes.

Q93. Do you recall that ah, you then spoke to her mother and that was on the 15^th of January. And do you recall whether or not you had another phone call or phone calls from Lyn after that time?

A. I remember having that phone call where I got cranky with her.

Q94. Ah hmm.

A. And I think obviously another phone call after that, yes.

Q95. Would you have told Mrs Simms about any subsequent phone calls?

A. Probably not because at that stage [JC] had moved in with me I think or close enough to it. And um, my contact with Mrs Simms basically stopped after that.”

49. Later at question 209 Mr Dawson said this:

“Q209. The point I’m trying to make there, Chris, ah, and trying to clarify is that in your report to police in August of 1982, you told them that the last contact you had had was on the 16^th, which is a week after, and yet if [JC] can be believed she says that in the middle of February ’82 you stated that you took a call from her and she was…

A. I will stand by what I said in August or whatever to the police that the last phone call was on the 16^th, then that’s when it was.”

50. On 16 March 1999, Mr Dawson was recorded speaking to his brother Paul in a legally intercepted telephone call shortly after the police had visited Paul and Marilyn Dawson at their home. Part of what was recorded is as follows:

“Paul: They said how many phone calls. We said, well we didn’t receive the phone calls, I said there was the one the day that she left, then there was one I think two or three days later to say she needed more time. I can’t remember if there was one after that or not, originally I said I thought there was and later, I don’t think, I was getting confused.

Chris: I can’t even remember. There were three or four in the first week or so.”

51. This is to be compared with what Mr Dawson said to his brother Gary in an intercepted phone conversation between them on 12 September 2018, when Mr Dawson said that he “still had contact with Lyn for like six or eight weeks”.

52. Noting that Mr Dawson is neither required to prove nor disprove anything in these proceedings, it is not controversial that he is the only person to assert that he has been telephoned by Lynette Dawson since 8 January 1982.

53. The Crown submits that the fact that Lynette Dawson has not spoken to any other person is a suspicious circumstance supporting an inference that Mr Dawson’s reports of receiving calls from Lynette Dawson are false reports. No one has been present when these calls are said to have been received. Mr Dawson’s descriptions of the calls received have varied over time. Lynette Dawson has not called her mother, her siblings, her work colleagues, her girlfriends or any other person who has come forward to say that they were contacted by her. The calls to Mr Dawson are bereft, even on his own account, of any content beyond trite references to Lynette Dawson needing time away. Her location, welfare, accommodation, financial situation and emotional circumstances are never apparently discussed, beyond an asserted complaint that she did not like being spoken to in a particular way.

54. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Dawson’s reported telephone conversations with Lynette Dawson after 9 January 1982 are lies. In further elaboration of the matters referred to in the preceding paragraph, the following things should also be emphasised.

55. I do not accept that Lynette Dawson, a woman allegedly determined to abandon her home and family and to disappear from sight and all that she had would at one and the same time continue to remain in contact with the very person who was on this analysis the reason for her departure. The contention that Lynette Dawson, a woman supposedly desperate to leave a relationship, would be inclined to provide telephonic updates concerning the status of her decision to leave is simply absurd: it defies common sense. The hypothesis that necessarily embraces all that was wrong with Lynette Dawson’s marriage as informing the decision she made to leave it cannot at the same time easily accommodate her maintaining a polite dialogue that does no more than provide her apparently discarded husband with the details of her current thinking.

51. Common sense also suggests that conversations between a married couple confronted with the awful and painful reality manifest in Lynette Dawson’s alleged decision never to return would have been replete with discussion of all manner of things including at the very least the welfare of the children. I cannot accept that Lynette Dawson would have telephoned Mr Dawson merely to say that she needed more time away, or that she would ring in a few days after she had sorted things out, or that she needed extra time to sort it out or that she needed a lot more time and did not know whether she would be returning. It is in my view fanciful to suggest that conversations as lacking in content and pregnant with cliché as those described by Mr Dawson ever occurred.

52. It is also remarkable in my view, if Lynette Dawson took the trouble to make the phone calls that Mr Dawson said he received, that they did not continue past some date in February 1982. Perhaps more significantly in that context, subject only to question and answer 208 given to the police in 1991, Mr Dawson never describes a telephone call from Lynette Dawson in which her decision never to return is communicated to him. Once again, it seems remarkable that a woman who was troubled enough to call to justify her continuing absence did not feel the need to inform her husband when her final decision had been reached. Instead, as Mr Dawson told the police, there were “nights that [he] lay awake crying [his] heart out hoping for some contact from Lyn”.

53. The question and answer referred to in the preceding paragraph are as follows:

“Q208. Do you recall um, being in the house one day and [JC] was there and you took a phone call and that you told Lyn, told [JC] sorry, that it had been Lyn on the phone and ah, that she said she was with friends, she was happy and well and was not coming back and not to worry about her?

A. Well, the last contact I had from Lyn was that she was feeling stronger and she [was] happy and not to worry about her. Whether it was five weeks after or, I thought it was about two weeks after the second last one, I said it was one week after. I know the last phone call I had from her was that she was feeling stronger and better and sort of, I wasn’t to be concerned. Still I guess the possibility I would, would, the belief was that she would at some stage be contacting me again. Obviously that was the end of her, her messages and contact with me.”

59. I do not take that answer to derogate from my conclusion that Mr Dawson has never described a telephone call from Lynette Dawson in which she communicated her final decision never to return. Indeed, Mr Dawson himself said that even notwithstanding the terms of that conversation, he retained the belief that Lynette Dawson would at some stage be contacting him again.

60. I also find it difficult to understand why Lynette Dawson did not telephone others besides him. Mr Dawson himself told the police in answer to question 180 of his 1991 interview that he also found it “extremely strange” that his wife had never contacted anybody else. After so many years of marriage, Mr Dawson was ironically the person best placed to offer such an assessment. Although described by him in that way, Mr Dawson went on to expand on his answer:

“Unless she has contacted other people and they’re not forthcoming such as…I find it extremely hard to accept as well. I, I guess that perhaps she had a nervous breakdown or that she was, she was an intelligent lady so I couldn’t see her being brainwashed by any sect or anything but um, so I’m at a loss to explain why she hasn’t contacted her family.”

61. In my opinion, that elaboration was offered by Mr Dawson in an attempt to ameliorate the significance of his concession that Lynette Dawson’s failure to contact anyone other than him was “extremely strange”.

62. This suggestion that Lynette Dawson would only, or indeed ever, have contacted the husband she had just decided to leave was the subject of discussion in the course of final submissions by Ms David of counsel, who appeared for Mr Dawson:

"HIS HONOUR: …What do you say to the obverse point, on the Crown's case, the curiosity that Lynette Dawson, who had left and phoned her husband, the relationship from which she walked out because it was causing her distress or whatever, he was the only person who she called in distinct contrast with the fact that she called no one else? What do I make of that, if anything?

DAVID: The defence say a number of things your Honour would make of that. It was the difficulty, we say, in the relationship which caused her to abandon the home. If Lynette Dawson had made a decision to abandon the home and her family, it is not a decision that is done in half measures in the sense that she telephoned her husband. It would be normal, given that he is also there with her children, that she would communicate with the person with whom she lived and was in a relationship, but not necessarily communicate with anybody else. Because if you made that painful decision to leave, it doesn't make any sense that she would then have relationships or telephone communication with other persons in her family because it would be impossible, for example, if she continued to communicate with Helena Simms but not see her children.

I mean, if she has made the decision to abandon her home, the defence say she is not going to communicate with other people because it is inconsistent with that abandonment. It would be impossible, for example, for her to have contacted Helena Simms and expect Helena Simms to not communicate or to endeavour to entice her back or to communicate with the children or to have a relationship which excluded for example well, the example of Lynelle Dawson, that she gave. You can't really abandon and start a new life but still hold onto some threads of it. That's not abandoning and creating a new life.

We say there is nothing to be drawn from the fact that she did not contact other people at that time.

HIS HONOUR: Your words were it was impossible that she would have contacted others. The Crown says that in the scheme of life and the normal understanding of human affairs, a woman, who presumably in distress makes a decision to leave her husband and children, might be expected, for example, to want information about them or to communicate to them other than through her husband, especially in circumstances where she, up to that point apparently, had had a close and loving relationship with her mother. What's impossible about saying to her mother 'don't worry about me, I'm okay, but you'll never hear from me again'?

DAVID: The defence would submit that that would be a very difficult call to make."

63. I have taken these submissions into account. I am, however, satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Lynette Dawson never telephoned Mr Dawson after 8 January 1982. I am reinforced in that conclusion as well by reason of other circumstantial evidence that leads me to conclude that Lynette Dawson did not leave her home voluntarily. This is considered later in these reasons.

The bankcard references

64. The Antecedent Report includes the following mention of Lynette Dawson’s bankcard activity:

“Prior to Christmas, Lyn had opened her own bank account and bankcard. Statements for January show she made purchases at Katies Narrabeen on 12.1.82 and on February’s statement 27.1.82 Just Jeans Narrabeen. No further statement or payments were made on that account that arrived here.” [Emphasis added]

65. That assertion is to be compared with Mr Dawson’s affidavit in the Family Court in 1983 to the following effect:

“4. In February, 1982, I received my bankcard statement which showed that the respondent had effected two purchases on our joint bankcard at Warriewood Square in the latter part of January.” [Emphasis added]

66. Mr Dawson was also asked about this in his 1991 interview as follows:

“Q44. Ah hmm. Chris, would you care to tell me ah, if you can remember what your banking arrangements were at the time that you and Lyn were still living together?

A. Um, we would have had joint accounts. We would have had um, bankcards to our joint account.

Q45. And prior to her starting work at the ah, Child Minding Centre, she wasn’t employed was she?

A. Yes. She was employed by um, he’s now Senator Peter Baume, Dr Peter Baume at North Shore Medical Centre.

Q46. Sure. But um, between that employment and her employment at the child minding centre, was there a period of unemployment?

A. Um, there may have been a very short time for um, trying to work out when, between the birth of the children or not. But um, there was very little time that Lyn was unemployed. She had you know, time off for each birth but apart from that she was basically employed most of our, middle of our married life.

Q47. All right. Your ah, banking was ah, done with the Commonwealth Bank at Narrabeen I believe. Is that correct?

A. At Mona Vale.

Q48. Mona Vale.

A. Unless our accounts were … because Mona Vale was the branch near Narrabeen in those days.

Q49. Um, the records show that your ah, that that your bank account was held at Narrabeen. Ah, and I believe that um, your banking accounts when you finally married [JC] were held at Mona Vale. Would that be correct?

A. Possibly. Yeah, probably.

Q50. All right. And on the basis of those accounts, do you remember how many accounts you had?

A. I only ever had one.

Q51. One account.

A. A joint account.

Q52. And that was a joint account. And you both had bankcards?

A. Yes.

Q53. And they both operated off that one account?

A. Yes.”

67. Mrs Simms’ letter also made mention of this topic:

“Tuesday 12^th She came back to the area and purchased an article on the Bankcard for $16, I guess a cardigan as she had nothing with her, although Chris said her uniform for nursing was not there, although her papers were.

…

She used the BankCard again on the 26^th to buy a pair of jeans but that was the last time as the account used to go to the Warriewood Child Minding Centre + they would notify Chris it was there.

I have contacted the CS Bank Narrabeen but her book has never been operated on.

The BankCard No is 496 62 205 014186 and addressed to the Child Minding Centre Warriewood. I tried to find out if she had opened another one with a new address but they would give no information as I was not the holder.”

68. The source of Mrs Simms’ information is not evident from her statement. The Crown contends that it came from Mr Dawson.

69. Apart from Mr Dawson, Barbara Cruise, Lynette Dawson’s employer, is the only person who claims to have seen her bankcard statement, although she could not recall seeing anything that indicated where she might be. She gave this evidence:

“Q. The bankcard correspondence that had been coming to the childcare centre, did any correspondence come after 11 January 1982?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do with it?

A. I’m ashamed to say I opened it.

Q. Why did you open it?

A. Because I was curious. I had my doubts at that stage and I was interested. But I honestly cannot recall what was on it.

Q. Did you look at the statement?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Did you see anything that would give you any information about the whereabouts of Mrs Dawson?

A. Not that I recall.

Q. After you had received the statement you’ve told us you opened it. Did you keep it?

A. No. I rang Chris Dawson and he collected it, I believe.”

70. Paul Dawson’s wife Marilyn Dawson gave evidence on this topic:

“Q. Did the topic of bankcard transactions made by Lynette Dawson come up in conversation in your hearing after the last time you saw her, Lynette Dawson, that is?

A. Well, a topic of bankcard transactions came up, yes.

Q. How many times, if ever, did you see a document that had bankcard transactions said to have been made by Lynette Dawson?

A. I don’t think I ever saw a bankcard statement that said that.”

71. Paul Dawson also spoke about this:

“Q. How many times, if ever, were you shown a bankcard statement for Lynette Dawson?

A. I can’t remember ever being shown a bankcard statement for Lyn Dawson.”

72. JC was taken to a statement that she gave to the police on 18 September 1998, in which she said this:

“In 1982 I recall see something a bankcard statement at the house which indicated a transaction involving something connected to an optical purchase. I cannot remember how much it was or any other details or who made the transaction. I cannot remember the circumstances of my actual seeing this statement but it seemed to be an indication that Lyn was still around. Lyn used to wear contact lenses and spectacles."

73. JC confirmed that she gave similar evidence at the coronial proceedings in 2003 in the following terms:

“Q. Did you ever see a bankcard statement come into the house?

A. I can't recall I think I might have.

Q. Can you remember when that was?

A. Very early in 1982."

74. It is extremely difficult to know what to make of this. The only evidence of the alleged bankcard transactions by Lynette Dawson is what Mr Dawson has told other people. It is obvious that if the evidence raised the reasonable possibility that Lynette Dawson made bankcard purchases after 8 January 1982, it would be fatal to the Crown case. The documents themselves are not available. Mr Dawson says it is unsurprising that he did not keep them as he had no reason at the time to suspect that they would ever achieve significance. He also maintains that if the present proceedings had been prosecuted with alacrity, the documents would in all likelihood have been available for inspection and that they would exculpate him. However, the question of how properly to assess the extent of any alleged prejudice in these circumstances is not one sided: the existence and the content of the statements are in the realm of conjecture.

75. Any final assessment of the significance or otherwise of this evidence must await a consideration of all the other circumstantial evidence in the case, considered as a whole and not in a piecemeal fashion.

The sightings

76. These are dealt with in chronological order.

Ray Butlin and Sue Butlin

77. Sue Butlin died in May 1998. Ms Butlin is mentioned in Mrs Simms’ diary entry for 18 May 1982 under a notation that appears to record information provided by Mr Dawson:

“Bumped Sue & Leanne at Quay. Chris rang. Sue thought she saw Lyn 5-6 weeks earlier at Gosford.”

78. Mrs Simms’ diary entry for 20 May 1982 reads:

“Rang Chris. Rang Sue at Gosford. Saw Lyn 5 weeks ago there.”

79. Following this, Mrs Simms went to Gosford and put an advertisement in the local paper with no evident response. Mrs Simms referred to this apparent sighting in her August 1982 letter to the police:

“Around about the same time or earlier another friend of Lyn’s thought she saw her in a car outside a fruit place she worked at on the way into Gosford so I put an advertisement 4 times in the ‘Central Coast’ paper.”

80. The Crown has noted that not insignificantly in the scheme of things, Sue Butlin’s sighting or report of an alleged sighting would appear to be the reason why the 1990 investigation into Lynette Dawson’s disappearance was suspended. Former Detective Maygar said that he did not recall speaking to Sue Butlin and if he had there would be a duty book entry. There is no such entry. Mr Maygar said he presumed that someone from the Missing Persons Unit or Mona Vale police station spoke to her. Mr Maygar never saw a statement from Sue Butlin.

81. Ray Butlin gave evidence about what his wife told him she had seen. Mr Butlin managed the Gosford Rugby League team in 1979 where Mr Dawson had coached and played, and he and his wife became very friendly with the Dawsons. They mixed socially.

82. In the 1980s, Mr Butlin’s wife commenced working at a fruit barn on the Pacific Highway at Kulnurra. Mr Butlin gave this evidence of what his wife told him:

“Q. After your wife Sue commenced working at that fruit barn, did the topic of Lynette Dawson come up in conversation between you and Sue?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you remember the exact words that Sue used? If not, tell the Court the substance of what she said to you please.

A. I don't recall the exact words. The substance was that she had saw a person that she believed was Lynette Dawson. She walked towards her, and the woman proceeded without turning around and got into a car and drove off.

Q. How many times did that event that you've just told the Court about come up in conversation between you and Sue?

A. No more than twice.

Q. If I heard your answer earlier correctly, you said the words ‘without turning around’. Is that what you said?

A. Yes, sir that's what I said.

Q. Who were you referring to when you said, ‘without turning around’?

A. The person that Sue believed was Lyn.

Q. Had did she get into the car?

A. How did she get into the car?

Q. Yeah, how did the person get into the car without turning around?

A. That wasn't discussed.

Q. What other details did your wife Sue give you at any time concerning what she said she saw on that day concerning Lynette Dawson?

A. No more than that; that she had seen a woman that she believed was Lynette Dawson, she called her name, the woman proceeded just towards the car and got in the car.”

83. In cross-examination, Mr Butlin said this:

“Q. Did your wife tell you that she'd seen Lynette Dawson shortly after she had seen her, did she tell you that?

A. Yes.

Q. And was that the same day?

A. Yes. I believe it was the same day. I don't know exactly.

Q. And at the time that she told you that you were aware that Lynette Dawson had left her home?

A. Yes.

Q. And so it was the case, wasn't it, that this was a matter of some interest that Sue, your wife, had seen Lynette Dawson?

A. Yes.”

84. Mr Butlin was also taken to an interview that he gave to the police in which he agreed that his wife had told him she had seen the woman she recognised as Lynette Dawson “front on” and that she had told him she was “adamant” that the woman she saw was Lynette Dawson:

“I thought about it quite a bit and I can recall that Sue mentioned that she had seen Lynette Dawson and, ah, she was positive that it was Lyn, and she approached Lyn and Lyn moved off.”

85. It is a matter of no controversy in these proceedings that Lynette Dawson did not drive. Ms Butlin’s alleged sighting, fleeting at best, would place Lynette Dawson at the Kulnurra fruit barn getting into a car and driving off. Mr Dawson has submitted that that expression is capable of accommodating the concept that she got into a car and was driven off. It follows that the woman seen by Ms Butlin is highly unlikely to have been Lynette Dawson if she drove away by herself.

86. In my view, this conundrum is best resolved by reference to other circumstantial evidence touching the likelihood or otherwise that Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 January 1982.

Ross Hutcheon and Lynette Hutcheon

87. It is convenient to consider their evidence together.

88. Six days after Mr Dawson was arrested on 12 December 2018, Ross Hutcheon sent an email via Paul and Marilyn Dawson to Peter Dawson, who is a solicitor. That email is in these terms:

“I was working at the time, driving along Victoria Rd at Gladesville heading towards Parramatta. Not sure if it was morning or afternoon. It was a bright sunny day. I was in vicinity of Gladesville hospital when I noticed a woman on the other side of the road standing at the bus stop, I believe it was Lyn Dawson I thought about stopping but said to myself, no she wants to make a break from Chris, so may it be. I continued driving but then decided to turn around and go back to the bus stop. I turned around but by the time I got there she was gone. I assume she had boarded a bus. At the time I was sure it was Lyn and the fact she was in close proximity to the hospital confirmed it for me.

I’ve never mentioned this before, which is a big mistake on my part considering what has happened Some time after Lyn went missing two police officers a male and a female, both young visited our place at Cromer. They stated that they were just tying up a few lose [sic] ends regarding the case. They asked questions like did you ever hear them arguing etc I told them about the Gladesville incident which they noted. Lyn of course can verify that the police had been told about the sighting.

727. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the only rational inference that the circumstances enable me to draw is that Lynette Dawson died on or about 8 January 1982 as the result of a conscious and voluntary act committed by Mr Dawson with the intention of causing her death.

VERDICT

758. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Crown has proved the single count in the indictment.

759. Christopher Michael Dawson, on the charge that on or about 8 January 1982 at Bayview or elsewhere in the State of New South Wales you did murder Lynette Joy Dawson, I find you guilty.

*************

Decision last updated: 01 September 2022