R v Dawson - [2022] NSWSC 877

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 877
Hearing dates: 30 June 2022
Date of orders: 04 July 2022
Decision date: 04 July 2022
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
Admit specified evidence as tendency evidence.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial – evidence – tendency evidence – whether proposed tendency evidence will have significant probative value

Legislation Cited:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), ss 97(1), 101

Cases Cited:
Aravena v R (2015) 91 NSWLR 258; [2015] NSWCCA 288
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338; [2017] HCA 20
R v Droudis(No 13) [2016] NSWSC 1350
The Queen v Bauer (2018) 266 CLR 56; [2018] HCA 40

Category: Procedural rulings
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

HIS HONOUR: By letter dated 8 May 2020, the Crown gave notice of an intention to adduce evidence of tendency pursuant to s 97(1) of the Evidence Act 1995, being evidence of the character, reputation or conduct of Mr Dawson to prove that he has or had a tendency to act in a particular way or to have a particular state of mind. The tendency sought to be proved is Mr Dawson’s tendency to have three particular states of mind, namely:

animosity towards Lynette Dawson;

the contemplation of retaining a third party to kill Lynette Dawson; and

a desire that JC be his wife and the mother of his children.

Evidence of matters upon which the Crown proposes to rely for a tendency purpose in (a) and (c) above is independently relied upon by the Crown as evidence of Mr Dawson’s motive to kill Lynette Dawson. Adjudication of the question of whether that evidence is admissible for a tendency purpose does not simultaneously affect or determine the admissibility of the same evidence for some other purpose.
Section 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 provides relevantly as follows:

97 The tendency rule
(1) Evidence of the character, reputation or conduct of a person, or a tendency that a person has or had, is not admissible to prove that a person has or had a tendency (whether because of the person's character or otherwise) to act in a particular way, or to have a particular state of mind unless--
(a) the party seeking to adduce the evidence gave reasonable notice in writing to each other party of the party's intention to adduce the evidence, and
(b) the court thinks that the evidence will, either by itself or having regard to other evidence adduced or to be adduced by the party seeking to adduce the evidence, have significant probative value.

Mr Dawson opposes the Crown’s application to adduce the nominated material as tendency evidence.
In accordance with s 97(1)(b), the touchstone of admissibility of such evidence…

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] NSWSC 877
Case: [2022] NSWSC 877
Decision Date: 04 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a murder trial, where the defendant, Dawson, was accused of the unlawful killing of an individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue revolved around the admissibility of proposed tendency evidence, specifically whether it would have significant probative value in the context of the case.

The court had to determine if the proposed tendency evidence, which was intended to establish a propensity of the defendant to commit violent acts, would hold substantial weight in assisting the jury to make a decision. This involved assessing whether the evidence would help the jury understand the context of the crime or the character of the defendant in a manner that was relevant and necessary to the resolution of the case.

The court concluded that the proposed tendency evidence did indeed have significant probative value. It held that the evidence was relevant in showing a pattern of violent behaviour by the defendant, which could aid the jury in understanding the circumstances of the alleged murder. As such, the court allowed the evidence to be presented to the jury. This decision was based on the premise that the evidence was not only relevant but also necessary in allowing the jury to make an informed decision about the defendant's guilt or innocence.

The final orders of the court allowed the proposed tendency evidence to be admitted into the trial, providing the jury with a comprehensive understanding of the defendant's character and potential propensity towards violent acts. This evidence was deemed to have significant probative value in the context of the case, aiding the jury in their deliberations and eventual verdict.

Orders