Australia Australia - Lynette Dawson, 34, Sydney, Jan 1982 *Arrest*

[alb1on]

I am new to this case so have less knowledge than those who will have followed it for many years. However, based on what I do know of the case, I am surprised by the vitriol directed at the ODPP for NSW. I am not at all surprised, either by previous decisions not to prosecute or by the time they are taking over the current decision. In taking decisions of this type the primary requirement is that there is a reasonable chance of conviction. Such a test is not satisfied by the 'everyone knows he did it' approach - if it was we would see many more innocent parties prosecuted (think Christopher Jefferies in the UK) with public opinion led by lazy journalists concerned only with a byline. In determining the prospect for conviction they have to assess not only the strength of the evidence, but also it's ability to pass specific technical legal tests such as admissibility. One reason for taking a stringent view of this process is the issue of double jeopardy, meaning the inability to go back and prosecute a second time if the case results in an acquittal. Whilst NSW has relaxed double jeopardy (and made that relaxation retrospective) my understanding is that a retrial would not only require new evidence, but new evidence which could not have been available at the first trial with competent investigation. In such an old case and with a first trial now this would probably exclude (for example) a second trial based on new DNA evidence as a defence could argue that any testing was possible at the time of the initial trial. So the ODPP is going to want to be very sure of its ground before going to trial. Imagine the public fury (not least from some on this site) if such a trial resulted in an acquittal.

No doubt some will point to the findings of coroner's inquests of murder by the husband. That is peripheral (if not damaging - as prejudicial) to the decision to prosecute. The inquest offers a view based on balance of probability. A criminal case must pass a much higher threshold to succeed.

I can understand the concern about this case but can see some real problems for the ODPP. Given the blatant incompetence of the police investigations the ability of a defence to challenge and undermine evidence is obvious. As has been pointed out, some witnesses are dead and, even if their statements are deemed admissible the value placed on them will be diminished (and this will be stressed by the judge) due to the inability to challenge the witness.

Finally, I think it is right to point out a key difference between the Australian system and the US system, since some commenting will be doing so from an American perspective. The US system has great strengths (not least its written bill of rights). However, its greatest weakness (in my opinion) is the system of electing legal officers (AG, Sheriffs etc) and making other legal decision makers political appointees subject to the whims of public opinion. That this is minimised in the Australian (and UK) models is their great strength.

Here endeth the sermon.

 

[k-mac]

gosh
the criticism for the dpp sit at a personal connection.
conflict of interest.
broadcasted widely within the media.
don't see commenting on proven reported bias as being 'vitriol' myself.
ask lynettes family if they think the uncovering of conflict of interest in their stagnated case at the dpp is 'vitriol'.
jmo

 

[alb1on]

gosh
the criticism for the dpp sit at a personal connection.
conflict of interest.
broadcasted widely within the media.
don't see commenting on proven reported bias as being 'vitriol' myself.
ask lynettes family if they think the uncovering of conflict of interest in their stagnated case at the dpp is 'vitriol'.
jmo

No. Some of the criticism relates to the Babb's connection to Dawson (and the handling of it) and some relates to the wider management of the case (especially delays in decisions). If it was only related to the Babb situation it would be more understandable but that is not the case. Even in relation to Babb, it is not a clear cut situation where he would have been required to recuse himself from the case (although he would have been well served to be more open). Judges (or in this case the DPP) are not required to recuse themselves in all cases of past contact with those involved. It depends on the nature of that contact. I can think of many cases where judges have not recused themselves where the conflict of interest appears to have been much more obvious than in this case. Justice Scalia was notorious for rarely recusing himself except in extreme circumstances.

The fact that lazy journalists smell an easy story is no proof of misconduct. But I do understand that the press coverage, by Australian tabloid standards, may not pass the threshold for vitriol.

 

[k-mac]

well I am here to support Lynnette dawson.
not the feelings of a government department.

 

[k-mac]

No. Some of the criticism relates to the Babb's connection to Dawson (and the handling of it) and some relates to the wider management of the case (especially delays in decisions). If it was only related to the Babb situation it would be more understandable but that is not the case. Even in relation to Babb, it is not a clear cut situation where he would have been required to recuse himself from the case (although he would have been well served to be more open). Judges (or in this case the DPP) are not required to recuse themselves in all cases of past contact with those involved. It depends on the nature of that contact. I can think of many cases where judges have not recused themselves where the conflict of interest appears to have been much more obvious than in this case. Justice Scalia was notorious for rarely recusing himself except in extreme circumstances.

The fact that lazy journalists smell an easy story is no proof of misconduct. But I do understand that the press coverage, by Australian tabloid standards, may not pass the threshold for vitriol.

bbm
for clarity are you implying the incredible work hedley Thomas has put into this case is lazy journalism and is an easy story???

 

[DRT]

No. Some of the criticism relates to the Babb's connection to Dawson (and the handling of it) and some relates to the wider management of the case (especially delays in decisions). If it was only related to the Babb situation it would be more understandable but that is not the case. Even in relation to Babb, it is not a clear cut situation where he would have been required to recuse himself from the case (although he would have been well served to be more open). Judges (or in this case the DPP) are not required to recuse themselves in all cases of past contact with those involved. It depends on the nature of that contact. I can think of many cases where judges have not recused themselves where the conflict of interest appears to have been much more obvious than in this case. Justice Scalia was notorious for rarely recusing himself except in extreme circumstances.

The fact that lazy journalists smell an easy story is no proof of misconduct. But I do understand that the press coverage, by Australian tabloid standards, may not pass the threshold for vitriol.

It was not only the opinion of "lazy journalists" but also the opinion of two coroners who have a lot more legal experience than many of the journalists. The first Coroner examined the evidence and decided that there was enough information to go to the ODPP for prosecution. One of the decisions from the ODPP at the time was that the witnesses had not been tested. Hence the second coronial inquest with approximately 20 witnesses. The coronial inquest did not have the power to subpoena the "known person" his brother or sister-in-law who were protected by a related lawyer.

The issues of this case not going to prosecution are probably more the lack of interest by the police at the time who were possibly friendly with Lyn's husband, and the fact Chris was a likeable and believable guy. This resulted in Lyn's trusting mother believing that she had left because she was told she had.

In the podcast there have been lawyer's that have spoken who believe there is enough evidence for prosecution.

 

[alb1on]

It was not only the opinion of "lazy journalists" but also the opinion of two coroners who have a lot more legal experience than many of the journalists. The first Coroner examined the evidence and decided that there was enough information to go to the ODPP for prosecution. One of the decisions from the ODPP at the time was that the witnesses had not been tested. Hence the second coronial inquest with approximately 20 witnesses. The coronial inquest did not have the power to subpoena the "known person" his brother or sister-in-law who were protected by a related lawyer.

The issues of this case not going to prosecution are probably more the lack of interest by the police at the time who were possibly friendly with Lyn's husband, and the fact Chris was a likeable and believable guy. This resulted in Lyn's trusting mother believing that she had left because she was told she had.

In the podcast there have been lawyer's that have spoken who believe there is enough evidence for prosecution.

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the coroner. He is there to investigate a death (or presumed death) and reach a verdict based on probability. It is not his role (and he lacks the expertise) to decide on whether to pursue prosecution. In the UK (where the system is similar) a coroner who called for prosecution would be liable to be removed from post, not just for exceeding his role but also for potentially prejudicing a future prosecution. The test for prosecution is whether success is probable based on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. And, of course, the 'known person' would not be tested in a court unless he chose to give evidence. In this case any lawyer would be mad to put him on the stand. The defence would be to bring out all the mud that has been thrown and say that it shows that the prosecution is already prejudiced and any testimony will be tainted by the circumstances of the prosecution.

I do not doubt the incompetence of the investigation, but - as I explained - that is a relevant factor in the decision to prosecute as it can be used to impugn the case.

 

[alb1on]

bbm
for clarity are you implying the incredible work hedley Thomas has put into this case is lazy journalism and is an easy story???

No. I am implying that those journalists who criticise the original decisions not to prosecute and current delays are lazy and seeking an easy byline. If you want evidence of the sheer lack of integrity (or stupidity) of many journalists (in a different arena), I recommend reading Ben Goldacre's books on the misuse of research and statistics by journalists.

 

[k-mac]

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the coroner. He is there to investigate a death (or presumed death) and reach a verdict based on probability. It is not his role (and he lacks the expertise) to decide on whether to pursue prosecution.

rsbm

Police start new search at missing woman Lyn Dawson's home

The two separate coronial inquests recommended to the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) that a "known person", identified now as Mr Dawson, be charged with her murder.

Despite the inquest findings, the DPP determined there was insufficient evidence to lay charges.

well does or does not the dpp take recommendations from the coroners office???
obviously it ultimately is out of the hands of the coroner.
however imo as stated above they clearly do and are highly influenced by inquest findings.

 

[Trooper]

bbm
for clarity are you implying the incredible work hedley Thomas has put into this case is lazy journalism and is an easy story???

surely not!... who would be that nuts?..... my discontent with the DPP rests on the deep understanding that there was, and still is, a firm convictable case to be made along the lines of sexual impropriety with a minor, multiple charges, allied with charges of grooming for sexual commerce, in so far as the arrangement Chris made with Paul re Joanne.

And then there are the matters arising from the same stable of crime where Paul is concerned, not the least being the relationship between student and teacher and the implications of duty of care.

These sexual adventures took place in relation to a Government High School, paid out of taxes, their wages were paid out of federal Taxes, so their is the strong possibility of fraud,. using one's position to influence minors. I could make a long post about the crimes on the ledger that both Chris and Paul, and probably a whole raft of teachers up and down the Peninsular were committing.

These events were certainly a starting point for the police to begin with, at the time, and now. There is no limit.

That the police of the day tuned out to these events is a disgrace and a backhander to community expectations. Particularly, since schooling is compulsory across the board, this aspect makes the absence of investigation and charges bought on those grounds alone a discrepancy that is missing an explanation.

 

[k-mac]

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the coroner.

this is an unfair comment.
DRT has a thorough understanding of the coroner and DPP'S roles.
there was nothing in his/her post that suggested a misunderstanding

 

[k-mac]

@alb1on
not accepting and proceeding with two coroners inquest findings as well as two separate police strikeforces UNHEARD of.

 

[Trooper]

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the coroner. He is there to investigate a death (or presumed death) and reach a verdict based on probability. It is not his role (and he lacks the expertise) to decide on whether to pursue prosecution. In the UK (where the system is similar) a coroner who called for prosecution would be liable to be removed from post, not just for exceeding his role but also for potentially prejudicing a future prosecution. The test for prosecution is whether success is probable based on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. And, of course, the 'known person' would not be tested in a court unless he chose to give evidence. In this case any lawyer would be mad to put him on the stand. The defence would be to bring out all the mud that has been thrown and say that it shows that the prosecution is already prejudiced and any testimony will be tainted by the circumstances of the prosecution.

I do not doubt the incompetence of the investigation, but - as I explained - that is a relevant factor in the decision to prosecute as it can be used to impugn the case.

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the Coroner in this instance, as the Coroner not only found that Lynn was murdered but that Chris Dawson murdered her... .

And this is where things go astray, because having recommended to the police his conclusions, it is expected, and , in fact in nearly every case so adjudicated the police in deed do precisely as the coroner recommends, in this occasion, no.

Stacked up against other cases, of which you may not be aware, this one was not impossible, the murder of Kylie Labouchardiere had even more difficulties to overcome, considering her murderer was actually a police liason officer, and was one step ahead all the time. ..

As it happened , there wasn't any 'lazy journalism' mostly because there wasn't any journalism AT ALL at the time.. There is now, naturally, none of it lazy, most of it accurate, and all of it subject to defamation laws of the suspect. Which, he has not pursued.. Odd, or what, ey?

 

[Trooper]

No. I am implying that those journalists who criticise the original decisions not to prosecute and current delays are lazy and seeking an easy byline. If you want evidence of the sheer lack of integrity (or stupidity) of many journalists (in a different arena), I recommend reading Ben Goldacre's books on the misuse of research and statistics by journalists.

I think the problem here is your misunderstanding of the differences in Coronial processes . You state the process are similar, and in one way, you are correct, the Australian coroner, and the English coroner do not investigate the crime alongside the police, as, say, a Scandinavian Coroner would, and a Scandinavian prosecutor, also...

A French Coroner would assign a médecin légiste to a case, up to and including the court procedure.

An Australian Coroner can and does recommend , to the police, and to the Dept of Prosecutions, as to the finding, and the expectation of the Coroner as to the accountability of the person responsible for the crime, so found.

I presume and I only presume, an English coroner does it differently.

 

[k-mac]

the family of lynette dawson were personally writing to babbs lobbying him to move forward, his lack of disclosure to the family personally about his intimate relation with chris dawson is abhorrent and worthy of dismissal on that point alone.

jmo

 

[DRT]

I am afraid you misunderstand the role of the coroner. He is there to investigate a death (or presumed death) and reach a verdict based on probability. It is not his role (and he lacks the expertise) to decide on whether to pursue prosecution. In the UK (where the system is similar) a coroner who called for prosecution would be liable to be removed from post, not just for exceeding his role but also for potentially prejudicing a future prosecution. The test for prosecution is whether success is probable based on the 'beyond reasonable doubt' test. And, of course, the 'known person' would not be tested in a court unless he chose to give evidence. In this case any lawyer would be mad to put him on the stand. The defence would be to bring out all the mud that has been thrown and say that it shows that the prosecution is already prejudiced and any testimony will be tainted by the circumstances of the prosecution.

I do not doubt the incompetence of the investigation, but - as I explained - that is a relevant factor in the decision to prosecute as it can be used to impugn the case.

I am new to this case so have less knowledge than those who will have followed it for many years. However, based on what I do know of the case, I am surprised by the vitriol directed at the ODPP for NSW.

I am one for trusting the legal system and what goes on with it. You have said you are only new to the case. There is also new evidence involved in this. A witness Bev McNally (nee Staniforth) that witnessed the alleged violence of Chris with Lyn as an example.

The lack of a body does leave questions but cases in Australia have been convicted on circumstantial evidence.

I have trust in them that they are reviewing the circumstances of the case and a 70 year old known person will be committed for trial.

 

[sleepinoz]

I am new to this case so have less knowledge than those who will have followed it for many years. However, based on what I do know of the case, I am surprised by the vitriol directed at the ODPP for NSW. I am not at all surprised, either by previous decisions not to prosecute or by the time they are taking over the current decision. In taking decisions of this type the primary requirement is that there is a reasonable chance of conviction. Such a test is not satisfied by the 'everyone knows he did it' approach - if it was we would see many more innocent parties prosecuted (think Christopher Jefferies in the UK) with public opinion led by lazy journalists concerned only with a byline. In determining the prospect for conviction they have to assess not only the strength of the evidence, but also it's ability to pass specific technical legal tests such as admissibility. One reason for taking a stringent view of this process is the issue of double jeopardy, meaning the inability to go back and prosecute a second time if the case results in an acquittal. Whilst NSW has relaxed double jeopardy (and made that relaxation retrospective) my understanding is that a retrial would not only require new evidence, but new evidence which could not have been available at the first trial with competent investigation. In such an old case and with a first trial now this would probably exclude (for example) a second trial based on new DNA evidence as a defence could argue that any testing was possible at the time of the initial trial. So the ODPP is going to want to be very sure of its ground before going to trial. Imagine the public fury (not least from some on this site) if such a trial resulted in an acquittal.

No doubt some will point to the findings of coroner's inquests of murder by the husband. That is peripheral (if not damaging - as prejudicial) to the decision to prosecute. The inquest offers a view based on balance of probability. A criminal case must pass a much higher threshold to succeed.

I can understand the concern about this case but can see some real problems for the ODPP. Given the blatant incompetence of the police investigations the ability of a defence to challenge and undermine evidence is obvious. As has been pointed out, some witnesses are dead and, even if their statements are deemed admissible the value placed on them will be diminished (and this will be stressed by the judge) due to the inability to challenge the witness.

Finally, I think it is right to point out a key difference between the Australian system and the US system, since some commenting will be doing so from an American perspective. The US system has great strengths (not least its written bill of rights). However, its greatest weakness (in my opinion) is the system of electing legal officers (AG, Sheriffs etc) and making other legal decision makers political appointees subject to the whims of public opinion. That this is minimised in the Australian (and UK) models is their great strength.

Here endeth the sermon.

BBM - Yes you are correct, you have less knowledge than those who have followed this case for many years.

 

[alb1on]

I have been away for a day (suffering on a footie trip!), but am a bit surprised at some of the replies since. Not by people having strong opinions, but by the failure to address the points I have raised as opposed to simply declaring them invalid (in effect) due to my newness to this case. So, for clarity) I will list some and ask respondents to correct me with specifics where I am wrong or (where I am right) point out why I am being unreasonable.

1. The role and responsibilities of the ODPP. Given the nature of this case and its history why would anyone expect easy decisions on whether or not to prosecute? Have I misrepresented the role and duties of the ODPP?
2. Is the prosecution threshold to proceed a probability of success and does the ODPP in NSW have the power to apply any different test?
3. Is it usual for an Australian coroner to proceed with an inquest where a future prosecution in respect of the (assumed) death is possible or will they (as in the UK) normally adjourn the inquest at that point until the prosecution has taken place?
4. Does an Australian coroner retain the power to name a suspect in an inquest or has that power (as in the UK) been abolished. If it is retained, has it been used in previous recent cases?
5. Is it unreasonable to bring up points of process in a case to which you are new if those points relate to the wider framework of justice as opposed to the facts of the case?

There seems to be significant confusion in some posts, perhaps due to people thinking I am taking a view on the guilt or innocence of the main suspect. That is not the case. My interest in this case was piqued by the highly emotional nature of some posts (far more so than in most threads I inhabit) which seem to disregard the need to maintain process. Unfortunately some posters seem to think that raising any issues which may conflict with their interests in this case proceeding to prosecution are an attack on their views. It is a shame when a forum of this sort is reduced to partisan positions.

 

[k-mac]

personally I think you are confused about the coroner and dpp connections here in australia.
what happens in the uk isn't relevant and or same to Australia.
the points you demand answers to are not really relevant to lynnette dawsons murder and this thread imo.

 

[Trooper]

I have been away for a day (suffering on a footie trip!), but am a bit surprised at some of the replies since. Not by people having strong opinions, but by the failure to address the points I have raised as opposed to simply declaring them invalid (in effect) due to my newness to this case. So, for clarity) I will list some and ask respondents to correct me with specifics where I am wrong or (where I am right) point out why I am being unreasonable.

1. The role and responsibilities of the ODPP. Given the nature of this case and its history why would anyone expect easy decisions on whether or not to prosecute? Have I misrepresented the role and duties of the ODPP?
2. Is the prosecution threshold to proceed a probability of success and does the ODPP in NSW have the power to apply any different test?
3. Is it usual for an Australian coroner to proceed with an inquest where a future prosecution in respect of the (assumed) death is possible or will they (as in the UK) normally adjourn the inquest at that point until the prosecution has taken place?
4. Does an Australian coroner retain the power to name a suspect in an inquest or has that power (as in the UK) been abolished. If it is retained, has it been used in previous recent cases?
5. Is it unreasonable to bring up points of process in a case to which you are new if those points relate to the wider framework of justice as opposed to the facts of the case?

There seems to be significant confusion in some posts, perhaps due to people thinking I am taking a view on the guilt or innocence of the main suspect. That is not the case. My interest in this case was piqued by the highly emotional nature of some posts (far more so than in most threads I inhabit) which seem to disregard the need to maintain process. Unfortunately some posters seem to think that raising any issues which may conflict with their interests in this case proceeding to prosecution are an attack on their views. It is a shame when a forum of this sort is reduced to partisan positions.

Dear Al,

Points 1 through to 5 can be easily answered, and authoritively so , at this website...

Australasian Legal Information Institute

This will save people from endlessly typing and arguing, and you wont have to take the word of contributors whom you regard as
'confused'.

May I add one thing? It's a small thing, not major, it's point 4.

Does an Australian coroner retain the power to name a suspect in an inquest or has that power (as in the UK) been abolished. If it is retained, has it been used in previous recent cases?

This is your question.. But I already answered it for you <modsnip - personalizing>. I informed you that not one, but two coronial inquest had taken place and that both Coroners named Chris Dawson as the major suspect.

Now.. as you see, this will answer point 4. you can now be absolutely certain that , yes, indeedy, an AUstralian Coroner does retain the power to name a suspect in an inquest .

If it is retained, has it been used in previous recent cases? Yes, it has, as a short interlude of you reading the AustLi sight will make perfectly plain to you...… you will find many instances. Because , guess what, that power has been retained by the Coronial Court in Au.

So.. you see, there are similarities, and there are differences, as I pointed out to you already. <modsnip - condescending>

It is a matter of luck if your 'points' you raise are addressed... some people may not feel inclined to bother, some may be too busy to respond, some people may find the points you raise as irrelevant to their perspective of the matter. <modsip - condescending>