R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 810

R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 810

The evidence from GB, JE, VR and JB was not admissible because it had no or extremely limited probative value, did not establish that Mr Dawson caused Lynette Dawson's bruising in 1969, was not relevant to facts in issue concerning her disappearance in 1982, and any probative value was clearly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; permitting it would also be a waste of time and it did not constitute admissible tendency evidence.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Murder Trial / Crown Application to Adduce Evidence and Tendency Evidence From Four Witnesses
Outcome
Evidence rejected
Legal Topics
['murder Trial' 'tendency Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'undue Waste of Time']
['criminal Law' 'evidence'] ['murder Trial' 'tendency Evidence' 'relevance' 'probative Value' 'unfair Prejudice' 'undue Waste of Time']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Murder Trial / Crown Application to Adduce Evidence and Tendency Evidence From Four Witnesses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Crown should be permitted to adduce evidence from four witnesses who were colleagues of Lynette Dawson in 1969.' "Whether GB's evidence was relevant and had probative value." 'Whether the probative value of the evidence was outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the accused.' 'Whether admitting the evidence would cause or result in undue waste of time.' 'Whether the evidence was admissible as tendency evidence under s 97 of the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence from GB, JE, VR and JB was not admissible because it had no or extremely limited probative value, did not establish that Mr Dawson caused Lynette Dawson's bruising in 1969, was not relevant to facts in issue concerning her disappearance in 1982, and any probative value was clearly outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; permitting it would also be a waste of time and it did not constitute admissible tendency evidence.

Court Disposition

Evidence rejected

Orders

  • ['The Crown was not permitted to rely upon the four statements of GB, JE, VR or JB or to adduce their evidence.']