R v Dawson [2020] NSWSC 1221
On 3 April 2020, Christopher Dawson was arraigned on an indictment dated 30 March 2020 charging him with the murder of his then wife, Lynette Dawson, at Bayview in the State of New South Wales on or about 8 January 1982. On his arraignment he entered a plea of not guilty.
By a notice of motion dated 7 April 2020, Mr Dawson (the applicant) applies for an order that the indictment be permanently stayed on the following grounds:
- The trial of the applicant will be productive of an injustice and incurable unfairness where the allegation of murder involves events which occurred in 1982.
- The applicant will be severely prejudiced in his defence as a result of the contamination of evidence and/or collusion between the Crown witnesses.
- The combination of delay and the contamination/collusion of Crown witnesses has prejudiced the applicant’s ability to defend the allegation of murder such that his trial will be so unfairly or unjustifiably oppressive that its continuation constitutes an abuse of process.
The evidence adduced on the application was voluminous. A supporting affidavit sworn by Mr Walsh, solicitor for the applicant, annexed five lever arch folders of material. The affidavit was read without objection. The material annexed to Mr Walsh’s affidavit included the brief of evidence served on the applicant following his extradition from Queensland under warrant on 6 December 2018. It also included the Crown case statement dated 23 April 2020 which was filed in this Court in accordance with the Crown’s obligations under s 142 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW)… continue to the judgment below…
If the document does not appear below, please refresh your browser.
Loading...
Reload document 
Open in new tab R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 552
On 3 April 2020 the accused, Christopher Michael Dawson, was arraigned in this Court on a charge that on or about 8 January 1982 he murdered Lynette Joy Dawson. He pleaded not guilty.
Mr Dawson’s trial is currently listed to commence on 9 May 2022. On 14 April 2022, he signed an election pursuant to s 132(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (“CPA”) for trial by a judge sitting without a jury. On the same day, he filed a notice of motion seeking that order.
The application was listed before The Honourable Beech-Jones CJ at CL on 2 May 2022. After refusing an application for adjournment, the matter proceeded. Shortly after submissions concluded, His Honour made an order granting the application for a Judge alone trial. His Honour stated that the reasons for that order would be published later. This judgment constitutes those reasons.
At the request of the parties, Beech-Jones CJ delayed publication of these reasons pending the outcome of an application for a non -publication order in respect of all aspects of the trial. On 9 May 2022, Harrison J refused that application… continue to the judgment below…
If the document does not appear below, please refresh your browser.
Loading...
Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Rollinson [2022] NSWSC 407
In this matter, Greg Walsh acted on a pro bono basis for Mr Michael Rollinson, Barrister, who had been the subject of two declarations that he was in contempt of Court and that he be punished for the contempt.
The Applicant was the Council of the NSW Bar Association (“the Bar Council”). Mr Rollinson pleaded guilty to each count of contempt. His Honour Beech-Jones CJ at CL set out the evidence in support of those breaches at [11] – [62].
His Honour approached the sentencing of Mr Rollinson on the basis that he had not previously breached the law or any relevant norm or professional standard. Further, that although his practice had struggled, were it not for his conduct since July 2021, it was likely that he would have continued with the support of solicitors and professional colleagues. However, his Honour regarded “it as an almost virtual certainty that either by way of being refused a Practising Certificate or removed from the Roll of Practitioners (or both), Mr Rollinson will not (lawfully) practice again.”
Beech-Jones CJ considered the Report of an experienced forensic psychiatrist, Dr Andrew Ellis, of 18 February 2022. Dr Ellis classified Mr Rollinson’s interpersonal isolation as schizoid personality disorder. This involved a pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restrictive range of expression of emotions beginning in early childhood.
The opinion of Dr Ellis gave rise to a real risk that Mr Rollinson’s “personality disorder, age and build would render him vulnerable to intimidation” in custody
His Honour set out the principles for punishment for contempt and ultimately determined that each of the contempts represented a serious challenge to the Court’s authority that was exacerbated by Rollinson’s status as an officer of the very Court he deliberately and repeatedly defied.
His Honour declared that Mr Rollinson is in contempt of the Court for the various breaches to which he pleaded guilty and ordered that a commitment to a correctional centre for a period of 9 months commencing on the date of his arrest be suspended on the condition that for a period of 3 years from today, 8 April 2022, he comply with Order 1 made by Wilson J on 16 August 2021.
If the document does not appear below, please refresh your browser.
Loading...