Dawson v R

The applicant's case

1. The applicant's case at trial was that the deceased was alive at about 3pm on 9 January 1982, having left the home in Bayview where she lived with the applicant and their two children (the Bayview house) because of her distress about the state of her marriage and her need to have time to herself. The applicant contended at trial and in this Court that the Crown had not excluded this hypothesis consistent with innocence beyond reasonable doubt.
2. On appeal, the applicant submitted that the verdict was unreasonable (and he was, accordingly, entitled to an acquittal) as the Crown had not excluded the reasonable hypothesis that the deceased was still alive after noon on 9 January 1982. Ms Rigg SC, who appeared with Ms Wasley for the applicant in this Court, accepted that the trial judge had rejected the evidence of several of the sightings of the deceased on which the applicant had relied at trial, but relied on the following in support of the hypothesis consistent with the applicant's innocence: 1. the alleged sighting of the deceased by Sue Butlin in April 1982; and 2. the applicant's statements that: 1. the deceased had called him at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 (the Northbridge Baths phone call) and had also called him on 10 and 15 January 1982; and 2. the deceased had engaged in bankcard transactions on Tuesday 12 January 1982 (at Katies, Warriewood Square) and 26 (or 27) January 1982 (at Just Jeans, Warriewood Square).

The trial

1. The evidence adduced at the trial, in so far as it is relevant to the appeal, will be summarised in the consideration of ground 4(ii).

The Crown's opening submissions

1. The Crown's opening submissions reflected the eleven matters referred to above and made no reference to any alleged lies on the part of the applicant. Accordingly, no reference was made to the possibility that any lie on the part of the applicant amounted to a consciousness of guilt.

The Crown's closing submissions

1. The Crown referred to the evidence which established the eleven pillars with which it had opened its case.
2. In closing address, the Crown also submitted that the applicant had lied on several occasions, as evidenced by alleged inconsistencies and significant omissions in his versions. The Crown relied on these alleged lies to impugn the applicant's credibility and to establish that his versions, in so far as they were consistent with innocence, could not possibly be true.
3. In particular, in order to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had died on or about 8 January 1982, the Crown was required to establish that it was not reasonably possible that the applicant's account that the deceased phoned him at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 and on subsequent occasions was true. This hypothesis consistent with innocence will be considered in the context of grounds 4 and 5.
4. After closing submissions, the Crown raised the question whether the trial judge ought give himself a direction under s 165B(2) of the Evidence Act but did not accept that the applicant had necessarily established that he had suffered significant forensic disadvantage.

The defence opening submissions

1. The applicant's trial counsel, Ms David, opened, in part, as follows: "Your Honour, it is important in the defence case that the relationship [with JC] became known to Lynette Dawson and that, for other reasons, this caused her to disappear. It is not in issue that the accused and JC formed a relationship, it resulted in their marriage, and that they separated as indicated in 1990. In addition to the evidence referred to above, there have been a number of important sightings. I won't raise them all, but there are a number and they date from a period around April to July 1982 where Mrs Dawson was seen around near the Gladesville Hospital. There was a further sighting on 28 March 1983 by a person who knew her well. There were further sightings in June and July 1984 by a previous neighbour. Again, none of these people aligned to Mr Dawson or at his instigation. There were other sightings, your Honour, that appear, possible sightings, some of which were not followed up. It is those factors and other factors that the defence say indicate that it is possible that Lynette Dawson was alive after 8 and 9 January 1982." (Emphasis added.)

The defence closing submissions

1. In closing submissions, Ms David submitted that the trial judge should give himself a forensic disadvantage direction under s 165B of the Evidence Act. She referred to delay in a discursive fashion throughout her closing address which began on 5 July 2022, continued until 8 July and concluded on 11 July 2022. Her complaint about delay was largely associated with criticisms of the police investigation.
2. On 5 July 2022, Ms David identified as matters warranting a s 165B direction the applicant's version that he had received a phone call from the deceased while he was at the Northbridge Baths on the afternoon of 9 January 1982 and that he had seen the deceased's bankcard statements which recorded transactions on 12 and 26 or 27 January 1982 at shops at Warriewood Square. Ms David also referred to the phone calls from JC to the Bayview house (while she was away at South West Rocks). Ms David submitted that the applicant had been forensically disadvantaged by the delay which meant that the records of these alleged phone calls and bankcard transactions were no longer available.
3. When asked by the trial judge to address the circumstance that the deceased did not call anyone other than the applicant on or after 9 January 1982 (and the only evidence that she had called him came from the applicant's statements), Ms David responded: "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."

The alleged lies relied on by the Crown as implied admissions on the basis that the applicant evinced a consciousness of guilt

1. After closing submissions had been made by each party, the trial judge asked counsel whether there were any further matters which they wanted to raise before he reserved his decision and adjourned the court. The Crown raised the issue of a direction concerning lies as a consciousness of guilt and proceeded to identify the following five matters which it submitted were lies (either positive statements or omissions) which evinced a consciousness of guilt on behalf of the applicant: 1. the absence of any reference in the applicant's report dated 18 February 1982 to the Missing Persons Unit (Exhibit BU) under the subheading "circumstances of disappearance", to the damage to his marriage caused by the applicant's relationship with JC; 2. the applicant's statement in his Antecedent Report dated 17 August 1982 to the Missing Persons Unit (the Antecedent Report), that he had travelled north "to be by myself" and the absence of any reference to JC; 3. the statement in the Antecedent Report that "all girlfriends [of the deceased] have been contacted" in circumstances where the only "girlfriend" who had been contacted was Robyn Warren (reference was also made to answers 71-79 of Exhibit AA, the applicant's Electronically Recorded Interview of a Suspected Person on 15 January 1991) (the ERISP); 4. the applicant's answers 10-12 in the ERISP that in 1985 at a Sydney Boys High School reunion, he had been told by Ian Kennedy that "he had heard a whisper that [the deceased] was in New Zealand"; and 5. the applicant's answer 19 in the ERISP that after the applicant said that he had travelled to Queensland with a girl he was having an affair with, he was asked whether he stayed at his brother's place when he returned to Sydney and he answered, "Um, my children were there with him. They were, I got back by memory I went to my place. My place is just up the road from his, but it's one of those instances where we were with each other all the time anyway, but.". (These will be referred to as COG (1)-(5) although they were not referred to in the trial in that way.)
2. In respect of COG (1) and COG (2), the Crown relied on R v Rose (2002) 55 NSWLR 701; [2002] NSWCCA 455 at [260]-[262] in support of the proposition that an omission may amount to a consciousness of guilt.

The verdict judgment

1. The structure of the verdict judgment was relied on to support grounds 2 and 3 (relating to consciousness of guilt) and grounds 4(i) and 5 (relating to the trial judge's finding that it was not reasonably possible that the deceased had phoned the applicant at the Northbridge Baths on the afternoon of 9 January 1982).
2. The structure of the verdict judgment is indicated by the headings used by the trial judge, which are reproduced in the table below: JUDGMENT [1]-[17] Background [2]-[10] Comment [11]-[17] WAS LYNETTE DAWSON ALIVE AFTER 8 JANUARY 1982? [18]-[151] Mr Dawson's telephone calls with Lynette Dawson The Northbridge Baths ([23]-[41]); Later telephone calls ([42]-[63]) [22]-[63] The bankcard references [64]-[75] The sightings [76]-[144] Ray Butlin and Sue Butlin ([77]-[86]); Ross Hutcheon and Lynette Hutcheon ([87]-[109]); Elva McBay ([110]-[113]); Peter Breese and Jill Breese ([114]-[129]); Mr Dawson's 22 August 2010 email ([130]-[132]); Narraweena, Beacon Hill, Terrigal ([133]-[135]); Paul Cooper ([136]-[144]) [145]-[147] Conclusion [148]-[151] Reliability of identification evidence IS LYNETTE DAWSON DEAD: PROOF OF LIFE INQUIRIES [152]-[155] JC [156]-[233] Assessment [227]-[233] HYPOTHESIS CONSISTENT WITH INNOCENCE [234]-[330] Circumstantial case direction Crown case: Lynette Dawson did not abandon her home [241]-[245] Lynette Dawson's daughters ([265]-[283]); Friends and family ([284]); Clothing and personal effects ([285]-[289]); Lynette Dawson's commitment to her husband ([290]-[296]); Lack of financial independence ([297]-[301]) [246]-[301] Mr Dawson's response: Lynette Dawson left of her own accord [302]-[320] The marriage was over ([303]-[307]); Extreme unhappiness ([308]-[312]); Low self-esteem ([313]-[318]); Dark moods and violence ([319]-[320]) [321]-[330] Conclusion HOW DID LYNETTE DAWSON DIE? [331]-[545] Robert Silkman Mr Dawson and JC [344]-[350] Cromer High School ([353]-[371]); PS ([372]-[383]); RH ([384]-[391]) [351]-[440] The relationship develops ([392]-[399]); SOW ([400]-[403]); Mr Dawson's "plans" ([404]); (1) The North Manly flat ([405]-[407]); (2) The "hitman" allegation ([408]-[417]); (3) Sale of 2 Gilwinga Drive ([418]-[419]); (4) A new life in Queensland ([420]-[421]); South West Rocks ([422]-[432]); 2 Gilwinga Drive ([433]-[440]) [441]-[445] Consideration [446]-[531] Mr Dawson and Lynette Dawson [532]-[540] Anna Grantham ([449]-[454]); Annette Leary ([455]-[469]); Julie Andrew ([470]-[480]); Patricia Jenkins ([481]-[486]); Gregory Simms ([487]-[501]);Coral Clarke ([502]-[504]); KF ([505]-[506]); BM ([507]-[515]); Judith Solomon ([516]-[522]); Roslyn McLoughlin ([523]-[524]); Robyn Warren ([525]-[531]) [541]-[545] Tendency evidence: a brief diversion Consideration GOOD CHARACTER [546]-[551] INCONSISTENT REPRESENTATIONS AND ACTIONS [552]-[564] LIES AS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT [565]-[631] Consciousness of guilt: direction [568]-[626] Mr Dawson contacted Lynette Dawson's girlfriends [574]-[580] Mr Dawson travelled north by himself [581]-[587] Missing Person's Report [588]-[591] Family Law affidavit [592]-[593] Lynette Dawson seen in New Zealand [594]-[596] Hope of her return [597]-[600] $500 [601] Phone calls [602]-[604] Exhibit AA [605]-[626] Note [627]-[630] Conclusions [631] DELAY IN PROSECUTION [632]-[645] THE POLICE INVESTIGATION [646]-[660] COMMENT [661] TEACHER'S PET PODCAST [662]-[687] EXHIBIT 35 [688]-[702] EXHIBITS G AND AY - HEARSAY EVIDENCE DIRECTION [703]-[706] OTHER DIRECTIONS [707]-[717] MOTIVE [718]-[725] DISCERNMENT [726]-[757] VERDICT [758]-[759]

The finding that it was not reasonably possible that the applicant received the Northbridge Baths phone call and that the applicant's version to that effect was untrue

1. The trial judge began the narrative in general terms under the heading, "Background" ([2]-[10]). Under the heading, "Comment", his Honour addressed the consequences of the Crown case being a circumstantial one as follows: "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. …"
2. Immediately under the first bold heading, "WAS LYNETTE DAWSON ALIVE AFTER 8 JANUARY 1982", the trial judge said at [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."

The use of lies as a consciousness of guilt

1. The trial judge addressed the topic of lies as a consciousness of guilt at [565]-[631] under the heading "LIES AS CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT". In prefatory remarks in [568]-[573], his Honour directed himself as to the conditions precedent for using a lie (or omission) as a consciousness of guilt in the terms of, but not referring to, Edwards v The Queen (1993) 178 CLR 193; [1993] HCA 63 (Edwards) (Edwards direction). At [573], his Honour said: "I have taken these principles into account as a mandatory guide in considering the matters that the Crown contends were lies told by Mr Dawson."
2. From [574]-[626], the trial judge identified what were said to constitute such lies. The verdict judgment refers to the following lies under the sub-headings as follows: Para in verdict judgment Sub-heading Substance Whether relied on by Crown as consciousness of guilt * [574]-[580] Mr Dawson contacted Lynette Dawson's girlfriends In the Antecedent Report the applicant said that all of the deceased's girlfriends had been contacted. Yes, COG (3) above. [581]-[587] Mr Dawson travelled north by himself "History - Lyn + I had been having marital problems for approx. 2 years, mainly over her Bankcard spending and financial matters in general. I left home for 3 days over Christmas + travelled north to be by myself. I returned home on Boxing Day, having missed my wife and daughters and hoping to resolve our differences." Partly: COG (2) above but problems about spending were not relied on by the Crown as a lie. [588]-[591] Missing person's report The applicant's omission to mention that he was in a sexual relationship with JC when he reported the deceased as missing on 18 February 1982 Yes, COG (1) above. [594]-[596] Lynette Dawson seen in New Zealand The applicant told police in 1991 that Ian Kennedy had told him that he had heard a whisper that she was in New Zealand. Yes, COG (4) above. [597]-[600] Hope of her return The applicant's expressions of grief at the deceased's disappearance and of hope that she would return, including the wording of the advertisement. No. [601] $500 The applicant told the police that his wife was in possession of $500 when last seen. No. [602]-[604] Phone calls The statements the applicant made to police that he and the deceased had been in telephone contact after she was last seen. No. [605]-[626] Exhibit AA Various lies told by the applicant in his ERISP on 15 January 1991. No, except where identified above. [611] Exhibit AA Answer to Q 19 that on his return from Queensland with JC, he did not go to his brother Paul's place but went home. Yes, COG (5) above.

• The fourth column is added to indicate the alleged errors which are the subject of ground 2.

1. Although the trial judge recited the Crown submissions on each matter and found that these matters were untruthful, his Honour did not, in this passage of the reasons, separately address the integers of the Edwards direction in respect of any of the lies alleged.
2. At the end of this section of the verdict judgment, the trial judge said at [631]: "Conclusions These are all matters that must be taken into account, as separate circumstances but considered having regard to all of the evidence as a whole, on the question of whether the Crown has satisfied me beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of Mr Dawson on the charge of murder."
3. Under the heading, "DISCERNMENT", the trial judge returned to the topic of the applicant's lies and said: "743 I am fortified in my ultimate conclusion in this trial by the lies that Mr Dawson told following Lynette Dawson's disappearance. That conduct is only explicable as demonstrating a guilty conscience referable to the death of Lynette Dawson. I reiterate, as I have already acknowledged, that I may only take a lie into account as evidence of Mr Dawson's guilt in the sense that it must be considered along with all of the other facts that the Crown relies upon and which I find established on the evidence in considering whether the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Proof of a lie does not of itself prove Mr Dawson's guilt. I am also acutely aware that I must also find that what Mr Dawson said, or omitted to say, amounts to a lie that relates to an issue that is relevant to the offence with which he is charged, being some significant circumstance or event connected with that alleged offence. I must also find that the reason Mr Dawson told the lie is because he feared that telling the truth might reveal his guilt in respect of the charge he faces or would implicate him in the commission of the offence for which he is now on trial. 744 Mr Dawson has made a series of representations in various circumstances over a long period of time, including his record of interview. They are representations which in a circumstantial case can be taken together for comparison with all of the evidence with a view to forming a conclusion if possible about where those representations fit in the scheme of things. However, I need to be cautious as the tribunal of fact that reliance is not placed upon what is said to be a lie as evidence of consciousness of guilt in a circumstantial case in a way that leads to circular reasoning. 745 Mr Dawson's lies fall into a number of categories. 746 First, Mr Dawson told lies that point away from the fact or tend to disguise or diminish the suggestion that he was interested or involved with JC. He travelled north by himself. It was not his desire that JC should come to live with him. When she did, it was not immediate. Their relationship had ended. It was at JC's instigation that he travelled to South West Rocks to retrieve her. He did not do so immediately. 747 Secondly, Mr Dawson told lies that he wanted to resume his relationship with his wife. He was anxious to do so. He lay awake at night hoping for her return. He even became impatient with her on the phone when her indecision persisted. 748 Thirdly, Mr Dawson told lies to suggest that Lynette Dawson was still alive. She had phoned him at Northbridge Baths. She had phoned him on a number of occasions thereafter. He had received bankcard statements indicating that she made purchases in the local area after she disappeared. 749 I pause to observe that, as I have earlier indicated, Mr Dawson is the sole author of this evidence. As anticipated, I am only able to reject this evidence upon a consideration of all of the evidence in this case. Part of that evidence has led me to conclude that Lynette Dawson was dead by no later than 9 January 1982. That conclusion supports my rejection of the evidence that she was using a credit card in late January. 750 Fourthly, Mr Dawson told the lie that Lynette Dawson had some form of emotional episode that might have led her to walk away from the family home. I acknowledge that Mr Dawson is once again the only source of information about that and that the Crown cannot show it to be a lie other than by reference to other circumstantial evidence that suggests she was in good spirits and optimistic about her marriage. That is an example of the need to be ever vigilant about the possible intrusion of circular reasoning when considering what are said to be lies told by Mr Dawson. 751 In summary, I consider that Mr Dawson's answers to the police in his 1991 interview and elsewhere, such as the Antecedent Report and the Missing Person's Report, contained lies and omissions that were intended to create, by themselves but also in combination, an impression that was inconsistent with him having anything to do with the disappearance of his wife: his relationship with JC was over; it was not he who wanted her to return to Sydney as his lover; he was yearning for contact from his wife; Lynette Dawson was showing signs of distress on the day before she disappeared; her optimism about the marriage guidance counselling was starting to unwind - she was 'disturbed by the results of that'; Mr Dawson expected JC to return to her family home in Sydney; he did not ask her to come and live with him; JC ended up coming to live with Mr Dawson because she was not wanted anywhere else; Mr Dawson thought that JC wanted to get away from South West Rocks; he re-joined his wife in his own home upon his return from Queensland with JC. 752 I find that these were lies told by Mr Dawson intending to deflect all or any attention away from him as a person possibly concerned in the death of Lynette Dawson. I consider that these lies are evidence of Mr Dawson's consciousness of guilt for the murder of Lynette Dawson. That finding is not, standing alone, determinative of this guilt." (Emphasis added.)

The decision not to give a s 165B direction

1. The trial judge's decision not to give himself a s 165B direction is the subject of ground 1. In the verdict judgment, the trial judge addressed the matters relied on by the applicant as warranting a s 165B direction at [633]-[644] under the heading "DELAY IN PROSECUTION". Of particular significance, the trial judge referred to the matters raised by the applicant as giving rise to a forensic disadvantage as follows: "633 A dominant and understandable theme of Mr Dawson's response to the Crown case is that he labours under a significant forensic disadvantage and has been denied the chance of a fair trial by reason of the extraordinary delay between 8 January 1982 when the Crown alleges he killed his wife and 9 May 2022 when his trial commenced. Mr Dawson claims general presumptive prejudice having regard to the passage of 40 years, if not more, as well as particular prejudice by reference to the death of potential witnesses and the unavailability of documents. 634 Some witnesses have died. These include Phillip Day, Elva McBay, Sue Butlin, Ross Hutcheon, Helena Simms, Michael O'Brien, Leslie Bush, Col Stubbing, Brian Gardiner, Margot Newlands, Kevin Roberts and Ian Young. In addition, some evidence has been lost or is otherwise unavailable. Possibly most significantly in this category are bankcard statements said to support transactions effected by Lynette Dawson after 8 January 1982, the Rockcastle Private Hospital records, especially the employee information, telephone call records from the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 and Mr Dawson's home phone in January and February that year, and potentially clinical notes taken by the marriage guidance counsellor during the consultation with the Dawsons on 8 January 1982. There may be other evidence in this category, although none was specifically emphasised or brought to my attention. It is convenient to deal with the particular before moving to the general. 635 Many of the witnesses who have died were long ago identified as potential contributors to the resolution of the mystery surrounding the disappearance of Lynette Dawson. Without being exhaustive, Phillip Day, Elva McBay and Sue Butlin provided statements before their death. Phillip Day gave evidence at the 2003 coronial inquest. Elva McBay gave evidence at the committal hearing. The coronial inquest transcripts are available and have in some cases been tendered in this trial. Mr Dawson was represented by his brother Peter Dawson at that time. Ross Hutcheon is dead but was thoroughly interviewed by police in Western Australia before that and a video recording of his interview was tendered in this trial. Sue Butlin's husband is still alive and gave evidence of the representations made by her to him concerning her sighting of a woman she believed to be Lynette Dawson. Col Stubbing was never interviewed before he died and so his evidence has been lost forever. Helena Simms was also never interviewed but her contribution has been somewhat extraordinarily documented in her prolific dairies and letters that give what might be characterised as a real-time commentary on events as she perceived them at the time. These have been received as evidence in this trial as well. 636 It cannot be doubted as a matter of principle that it would have been preferable if this trial had commenced before now-dead witnesses became unavailable. However, closer examination of the dead witnesses' evidence suggests that Mr Dawson's specific complaints about disadvantage caused by their absence may be less significant than at first sight appears. For example, Phillip Day, to the extent that he was able, effectively corroborated what Mr Dawson said occurred at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982. I do not understand there to be controversy attending his evidence about how he described Lynette Dawson's mood in his telephone conversation with her the previous evening. I am prepared to assume that Mr Dawson's interests were thoughtfully analysed and protected by his brother at the coronial inquest. I acknowledge in that respect that Mr Dawson was not then on trial for murder, but in the nature of things would undoubtedly have been seen as a person of interest. Having regard to Mr Day's statements and evidence at the coronial inquest, it is difficult to discern any particular disadvantage that his current unavailability may have occasioned. None was identified to me by Ms David during the course of her extensive closing submissions. 637 Elva McBay's evidence at the committal hearing was video recorded. That recording was tendered in this trial. Having seen and heard Mrs McBay give her version of what she said she saw, I would be doubtful that she would have resiled from anything she said at that time if cross-examined again before me. She was cross-examined at the committal hearing by very experienced senior counsel for Mr Dawson. It is difficult to detect the existence of any disadvantage occasioned by her unavailability now. In any event, her evidence was not unfavourable to Mr Dawson. 638 Ross Hutcheon's police interview was entirely favourable to Mr Dawson. He gave evidence on 13 February 2020 at the committal hearing as well. He remained adamant that he saw Lynette Dawson in Gladesville. That evidence is unlikely to have been the subject of challenge by Mr Dawson in these proceedings. Ms David did not suggest in terms that Mr Hutcheon's absence was prejudicial to Mr Dawson in this trial. 639 Despite her absence, Sue Butlin's evidence was effectively received through her husband. Her representations to him supported Mr Dawson's response to the Crown case by the identification of a woman she thought was Lynette Dawson at the Kulnurra Fruit Barn well after 8 January 1982. Ms Butlin's unavailability meant that her evidence was not subject to challenge. 640 Col Stubbing could well have been a critical witness in this trial. Mr Dawson presumably wishes to argue that he would have been able to clarify the question of whether or not he was present at the time Mr Dawson received an STD phone call from a woman at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982. As presently understood, there is no way of knowing whether any evidence that Mr Stubbing could have given would have been favourable or unfavourable to Mr Dawson. That is, of course, a question that attends assessment of the existence of prejudice in all cases in which it is not known what a particular witness would say or what a particular document might reveal."

The requirements of a trial judge when coming to a verdict in a trial by judge alone

1. The trial judge was required to comply with s 133(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, as set out above. This required his Honour to set out the principles of law which he applied as well as the findings of fact. In Fleming v The Queen (1998) 197 CLR 250; [1998] HCA 68 (Fleming), the High Court said of s 33, the predecessor to s 133, at [22] (footnote omitted): "Such a provision is an expression of legislative concern not only for the effective exercise by the Court of Criminal Appeal of its jurisdiction conferred by ss 5 and 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act. More fundamentally, s 33 evinces a concern that, in the operation of the new regime established by Pt 9 of the Criminal Procedure Act whereby trial by jury is replaced in certain circumstances by trial by judge sitting alone, justice must not only be done but also be seen to be done."
2. The High Court said further at [30]: "Seventhly, if the judgment fails to show that the judge applied a relevant principle of law, two possibilities are presented. One possibility is that, notwithstanding such failure, the principle was applied. Upon that hypothesis, there has been a breach of s 33(2) by reason of the omission from the judgment. The other possibility is that the principle was not applied, with the result that, independently of the question of breach of s 33(2), there has been an error of law which may attract at least the second limb of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act. The obligation imposed by s 33(2) was to ensure that the judgment included all principles of law which the judge applied. Unless the judgment shows expressly or by implication that the principle was applied, it should be taken that the principle was not applied, rather than applied but not recorded." (Emphasis added)
3. Heydon J in AK v Western Australia (2008) 232 CLR 438; [2008] HCA 8 (AK) highlighted the forensic benefit to an accused who is tried by judge alone rather than by jury. Instead of the safeguards of the jury trial, the accused gains the benefit of transparency which the requirement to give reasons affords and the consequential benefit of being able to detect error in the trial judge's deliberations, which is not open in jury trials because of the assumption that a jury complies with the directions given by the trial judge. Heydon J said at [108] (footnotes omitted): "The discipline of giving reasons. Section 120(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act does not serve only the purpose of enabling the accused to know why there was a conviction, or the prosecution to know why there was an acquittal. The facility it offers for close appellate scrutiny of the trial judge means that it creates an essential discipline. The process of having to state judicial reasoning in terms sufficiently clear, exact and convincing to pass muster in the eyes of an appellate court listening to the sometimes hypercritical submissions of counsel entails a need to be very precise in working that reasoning out. The discipline stems from the fact that the process of stating reasoning often reveals its fallacies: in the course of composing reasons for judgment directed to supporting a conclusion which seemed clear, judges often find that the opinion 'won't write', and that a different conclusion develops. There is a legislative assumption that compliance with that discipline is not only more likely to produce justice according to law, but is a necessary precondition for that outcome. The abolition of jury trial entails removal of the safeguard to be found in the peculiar discipline of jury trial. The new safeguard, to be found in the discipline of having to give reasons, is a vital technique for ensuring accurate fact finding, correct inferential reasoning and sound application of the law to the facts."

Ground 1: alleged failure by the trial judge to give himself a warning pursuant to s 165B of the Evidence Act

1. Ms Rigg submitted that the trial judge erred in not finding that the applicant had suffered a significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay and in failing to give himself a warning pursuant to s 165B of the Evidence Act (although Ms Rigg accepted that the trial judge had given himself a general warning regarding delay).
2. Ms Rigg argued that the correctness standard applies and that this Court ought find that the trial judge ought to have been satisfied that the delay in the prosecution of the offence had caused significant forensic disadvantage. In the alternative, Ms Rigg submitted that, if the House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 test for an error in a discretionary decision applies, either, it was not reasonably open to the trial judge not to be satisfied of that matter; or the trial judge failed to apply the law correctly when exercising the discretion. Further, she took issue with the trial judge's statement in [633] (reproduced above) that he had relied on "presumptive disadvantage". Ms Rigg submitted that no such submission had been made on behalf of the applicant at trial.
3. The Crown submitted that the standard of review which applied (correctness or House v The King error) had not been authoritatively determined but that, on either standard, no error had been established.

The relevant principles

1. The Evidence Act was intended to make significant changes to the laws of evidence in New South Wales: McNamara v The King [2023] HCA 36; (2023) 98 ALJR 1 at [57]. The insertion of s 165B into the Evidence Act can be taken to have marked a change in the common law principles articulated in Longman v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60 (Longman) which required trial judges, where evidence of a complainant could not be adequately tested after the passage of time (in that case, more than 20 years), to direct juries that it was "dangerous to convict" on that evidence alone, unless they were satisfied of its truth and accuracy, on the basis of presumptive prejudice arising from the delay (at 91, Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ).
2. In Longman, the appellant was charged with two counts of indecent dealing with his step-daughter who was aged 6 (for count 1) and 10 (for count 2). The trial took place when the complainant was 32 years old. She first complained of the offending conduct in August 1987, 25 years after count 1 and 21 years after count 2. Mr Longman's appeal against his conviction was allowed on the basis that the trial judge had not warned the jury that it was dangerous to convict the appellant because the delay meant that the complainant's evidence could not be adequately tested.
3. The High Court (Brennan, Dawson and Toohey JJ) said, at 91: "Had the allegations been made soon after the alleged event, it would have been possible to explore in detail the alleged circumstances attendant upon its occurrence and perhaps to adduce evidence throwing doubt upon the complainant's story or confirming the applicant's denial. After more than 20 years that opportunity was gone and the applicant's recollection of them could not be adequately tested. The fairness of the trial had necessarily been impaired by the long delay … and it was imperative that a warning be given to the jury. The jury should have been told that, as the evidence of the complainant could not be adequately tested after the passage of more than 20 years, it would be dangerous to convict on that evidence alone unless the jury, scrutinising the evidence with great care, considering the circumstances relevant to its evaluation and paying heed to the warning, was satisfied of its truth and accuracy. To leave a jury without such a full appreciation of the danger was to risk a miscarriage of justice. The jury was told simply to consider the relative credibility of the complainant and the appellant without either a warning or a mention of the factors relevant to the evaluation of the evidence. That was not sufficient." (Citations and footnotes omitted.)

The application of the principles in the present case

The matters relied on before the trial judge

1. The applicant at trial identified the seven matters (set out above) as giving rise to a significant forensic disadvantage such as to warrant a direction pursuant to s 165B.
2. Of these seven, (1), (2) (concerning the hit man) and (3)(b) (concerning the bruising on the deceased's neck) were not pressed on appeal since the trial judge rejected this evidence in any event. I did not understand the applicant to press (3)(a) (regarding corroboration of Ms Strath's evidence that the deceased had been happy after the marriage counselling session on 8 January 1982) since Ms Strath's evidence was neither challenged by the applicant nor controverted by any other evidence in the Crown case and, indeed, was corroborated by observations made by Barbara Cruise, another of the deceased's work colleagues. The last matter relied upon, (7), related to the loss of the file in the Mayger/Wright investigation but did not assert any particular prejudice beyond the loss of opportunity to know of potentially exculpatory material or contemporaneous witness evidence.
3. I consider that, for the reasons given by the trial judge at [636]-[639] (set out above), his Honour was correct to consider that the unavailability of Phillip Day, Elva McBay, Ross Hutcheon and Sue Butlin did not cause significant forensic disadvantage to the applicant.
4. This leaves three matters for consideration: the bankcard statements ((4)); the lack of records as to who (including the applicant) worked at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 ((5)); and the lack of telephone records ((6)). These will be addressed in turn.

The applicant's versions

1. The applicant gave different versions relating to alleged bankcard purchases by the deceased after her disappearance on 8 January 1982, as follows: Source of version Substance of version given by the applicant Missing Person report made by applicant (18 February 1982) "Bankcard indicated that [the deceased] was at Warriewood on the 12th." Antecedent report (17 August 1982) The applicant had seen the deceased's bankcard statements which recorded transactions on 12 January 1982 and 26 or 27 January 1982 at Katies and Just Jeans at the Warriewood Square. April 1983, affidavit sworn by the applicant in Family Law Proceedings (AB 1696-1697) In February 1982, the applicant received his bankcard statement which showed that the respondent had made two purchases on their joint bankcard at Warriewood Square during the latter part of January. ERISP, 15 January 1991 (AB 669-670) The applicant and the deceased each had a bankcard to a joint account.

The evidence at trial

1. The evidence relating to the use of bankcards by married women and the creation of bankcard statements was as follows.
2. Brigitte Green was a full-time sales assistant at the Katies store at Warriewood Square in 1981 and 1982. Items at the store could be paid for by cash, cheque or bankcard. At the end of each trading day, a staff member would put the cash, cheques and bankcard slips into a brown wallet and deliver it to the night safe at the Commonwealth Bank at the Square, for which they had a key. The following morning, Ms Green would attend the Warriewood branch of the Commonwealth Bank. The teller would give her a book in which she would sign for the wallet, which would be opened in front of her and she would then proceed to do the "normal banking" (depositing the cash and cheques and processing the bankcard slips). Friday's transactions would be processed on Monday morning, unless Monday was a public holiday in which case they would be processed on the Tuesday morning.
3. Ms Green was asked about her experience of transactions with persons other than the card holder as follows: "Q. In the time that you worked at the Katies at the Warriewood Square store, did you have any experiences of someone making a payment for the purchase of an item or items and it was the husband of the woman that had the card in her name or vice versa? A. Yes, sometimes we did. We did, yes. And especially if they are returning a garment, sometimes, you know, the husband would say, you know my wife or whatever or the boyfriend and whatever, and then we would just refund the money. Because that was the only way we could refund, but it had to be the same card, it had to be the same card."
4. Mark Moroney, an employee of the National Australia Bank, gave evidence about banking practices in the early 1980's. He described the records produced by bankcard transactions as follows: "A click-clack sliding machine was what merchants or retail stores had in their possession at the time when a customer wanted to do a card or a BankCard transaction. Basically it was a carbon copy document, a document we put in the click-clack machine. The retailer would slide back and forth which would impregnate the card and the customer's details on the card, and from there the customer would be given a copy and the merchant would keep a copy himself which would eventually end up at the bank."

Whether the applicant suffered a significant forensic disadvantage by reason of delay

1. The question whether the applicant suffered forensic disadvantage by reason of the delay which made bankcard records unavailable depends, in part, on which, if any, of his four versions set out above was correct. If, as the applicant said in his report to Missing Persons dated 18 February 1982, there was only one relevant bankcard transaction, and it was on 12 January 1982, this could have related to a transaction by the deceased on Friday 8 January 1982, as she worked that day at Warriewood Square, near the Katies store and the transaction may not have been processed until the following Tuesday, 12 January 1982.
2. If the bankcard statement which he had seen was for the deceased's bankcard, then the transactions could have been entered into either by her or by him (having regard to the evidence of Ms Green which established that it was possible that the applicant used the deceased's bankcard after 9 January 1982). If the bankcard statements related to their joint account, then the fact of there being transactions in January 1982 after 9 January 1982 is neutral since he may have made those purchases.
3. It is also questionable whether any alleged forensic disadvantage can properly be said to have been suffered "because of the consequences of delay" as required by s 165B. It can be inferred that the applicant was well aware of the potential significance to locating the deceased (if he believed, as was his case at trial, that she had left) of the bankcard records when he included in his Missing Persons Report of February 1982 a reference to the transaction on 12 January 1982. At that time, he had the bank records. If the transactions were on the account he held jointly with the deceased (as he represented in 1983 and 1991), he had access to those records as a joint account holder. Although the deceased's disappearance was the subject of investigation at that stage (from 1982-1990) by the Missing Persons Unit rather than the Homicide Squad, his failure to keep records which he identified at the time as being important cannot properly be characterised as a consequence of the delay: Jarrett at [63].
4. In these circumstances, the applicant has failed to establish that he has suffered significant forensic disadvantage by reason of delay in relation to the bankcard records.

The records of Northbridge Baths including the telephone records

1. The applicant submitted that he suffered significant forensic disadvantage because the delay had resulted in the employment records of the Northbridge Baths no longer being in existence which meant that he could not prove that he was working there on 9 January 1982.
2. I reject this submission: it was not in issue that the applicant was working at the Northbridge Baths that day. The Crown case included evidence from JM, who worked there on 9 January 1982 and who noted in her diary for that day: "January 9, Saturday, 1982, worked in shop, 8 to 5.30. Didn't get any money because, as usual, Col left at 12 and Chris Dawson never pays."
3. Further, the applicant's presence at the Northbridge Baths was corroborated by Mr Day, the diary of Helena Simms and her letter to her daughter, also called Helena (but known as Pat), dated 21 January 1982 (referred to in more detail below regarding ground 4(ii)).
4. As to the alleged Northbridge Baths phone call, the fact of a phone call, or purported phone call being made to the applicant was neutral since the applicant's case was that the deceased had called him and the Crown case was that the applicant falsely said that the deceased had called him (whether or not he had actually received a phone call) so as to make others (including the deceased's mother and Phillip Day) believe that the deceased was still alive (with the consequence that there would be no immediate concern about, or investigation into, her disappearance). Thus, even if there was evidence to show that the applicant was called to the phone and that an STD call was made to the Northbridge Baths on the afternoon of 9 January 1982, that evidence was, in the circumstances of the case, neutral.
5. The position would have been different if the applicant's instructions (or version to police) were that the deceased identified herself to the person who answered the phone at the Northbridge Baths as his wife and the person summoned him to the phone with the words, "it's your wife on the phone, hurry, it's an STD call", in which case the loss of such evidence (because the person who answered the phone was dead, could not be located or could not remember the phone call), may be capable of establishing significant forensic disadvantage to the applicant. Similarly, if the case of a person accused of penile-vaginal sexual intercourse without consent, was that he was, at the relevant time, incapable of obtaining an erection and, by reason of delay, could not call his then general practitioner or obtain clinical notes of consultations where treatment was sought for the condition, the forensic disadvantage to him by reason of delay may be significant.

Other telephone records

1. The applicant also submitted that he suffered significant forensic disadvantage by reason of the loss of the telephone records for the Bayview house (which would have established the receipt and timing of JC's calls from South West Rocks). It is difficult to discern how the availability of such records would have assisted the applicant. First, JC's uncontroverted evidence at trial was that she called the applicant every day at the Bayview house while she was away at South West Rocks because he had told her to. Secondly, it was not in issue that JC had called him from a public phone at South West Rocks. It was not suggested that JC had called the applicant at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 because his instruction to her was that she ought call him at home.

Relevance of the refusal to grant a permanent stay

1. As referred to above, the applicant applied for a permanent stay of his trial, in part, on the ground of alleged forensic disadvantage by reason of delay. His application was refused and this Court dismissed his appeal from that refusal. In the course of her reasons for judgment at first instance, Fullerton J determined that she was not satisfied that any forensic disadvantage by reason of delay could not be addressed by directions: R v Dawson [2020] NSWSC 1221 at [397]. This Court referred to the directions and warnings that could be given "in certain circumstances" to ameliorate the effect of delay: Dawson v R (2021) 108 NSWLR 96; [2021] NSWCCA 117 at [180]-[181]. Neither Fullerton J, nor this Court, ought be taken to have undertaken the process required by s 165B, which was one to be undertaken by the trial judge, having regard to the evidence tendered in the trial and the submissions made in support of an application for such a direction. Thus, to the extent to which Ms Rigg intimated that there was some estoppel arising from those decisions which bound the trial judge to give a s 165B direction, I reject the submission.

Conclusion

1. For these reasons, ground 1 has not been made out.
2. I consider that the trial judge was correct not to inform himself in accordance with s 165B(2) since the applicant had not established that he had suffered any significant forensic disadvantage because of the consequences of delay as required by that section. No error of process or result has been established. In these circumstances, it is not necessary to decide whether the correctness standard applies or whether House v The King error must be established.
3. Further, and in any event, although the trial judge did not inform himself expressly under s 165B, his Honour gave himself a substantially similar warning in [645] (extracted above) and "remind[ed] [himself] that in deciding this case [he] must remain constantly vigilant to identify and make allowance for the possibility that Mr Dawson's ability adequately to respond to the Crown case may have been unfairly compromised by the fact that he faces a trial for murder in 2022 and not 1982." The present case bears some similarities to Brown (where the trial judge had made similar observations in the verdict judgment in the context of a long delay). This Court held in Brown at [46]: "…[I]t is abundantly clear from the [relevant] passages … that her Honour did not need to warn herself in terms of the obvious fact that memories fade over time, and that any assessment of reliability of evidence based upon memory must necessarily bear that fact in mind. … that the fact that there were certain matters that witnesses could not remember after 40 years was readily apparent to the tribunal of fact and did not call for a special direction."
4. As no error has been established, it is not necessary to determine whether "there was a miscarriage of justice" for the purposes of s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act. However, in my view, the applicant got, in substance, what he had asked for from the trial judge, albeit that his Honour found that the legislative pre-conditions for giving such a direction under s 165B had not been met.

Grounds 2 and 3: alleged errors with respect to use of lies as consciousness of guilt

1. There is an important distinction between lies which may be used, under certain strict conditions as implied admissions because they evince a consciousness of guilt on the part of an accused (Edwards lies) and other lies, which are relevant to the credibility of versions given by the accused to others, including the police, and, if the accused gives evidence, to that evidence (Zoneff lies). The shorthand expressions for these lies is taken from the authorities which articulate the difference: Edwards and Zoneff v The Queen (2000) 200 CLR 234; [2000] HCA 28 (Zoneff). If an accused's statement constitutes an hypothesis consistent with innocence, the tribunal of fact must, before convicting an accused, be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that it is not reasonably possible that the statement is true. If it is not reasonably possible that it is true, the lie must be put aside: De Silva v The Queen (2019) 268 CLR 57; [2019] HCA 48 at [12] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Gageler and Gordon JJ). If it is reasonably possible that such a statement is true, the accused will be entitled to be acquitted. The assessment of reasonable possibility in this context requires consideration of the whole of the evidence.
2. Only Edwards lies can be weighed by the tribunal of fact, with other evidence in the Crown case, to determine whether the Crown has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal, only Edwards lies can be taken into account, with other evidence in the Crown case, to determine whether a verdict is unreasonable: Edwards at 210.
3. Where the trial is by jury and the prosecutor relies on lies or conduct of an accused as Edwards lies, the trial judge is required to give an Edwards direction, as follows (Edwards at 210-211): "A lie can constitute an admission against interest only if it is concerned with some circumstance or event connected with the offence (i.e. it relates to a material issue) and if it was told by the accused in circumstances in which the explanation for the lie is that he knew that the truth would implicate him in the offence. Thus, in any case where a lie is relied upon to prove guilt, the lie should be precisely identified, as should the circumstances and events that are said to indicate that it constitutes an admission against interest. And the jury should be instructed that they may take the lie into account only if they are satisfied, having regard to those circumstances and events, that it reveals a knowledge of the offence or some aspect of it and that it was told because the accused knew that the truth of the matter about which he lied would implicate him in the offence, or, as was said in Reg v Lucas (Ruth), because of 'a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth'. Moreover, the jury should be instructed that there may be reasons for the telling of a lie apart from the realization of guilt. A lie may be told out of panic, to escape an unjust accusation, to protect some other person or to avoid a consequence extraneous to the offence. The jury should be told that, if they accept that a reason of that kind is the explanation for the lie, they cannot regard it as an admission. It should be recognized that there is a risk that, if the jury are invited to consider a lie told by an accused, they will reason that he lied simply because he is guilty unless they are appropriately instructed with respect to these matters. And in many cases where there appears to be a departure from the truth it may not be possible to say that a deliberate lie has been told. The accused may be confused. He may not recollect something which, upon his memory being jolted in cross-examination, he subsequently does recollect." (Footnotes omitted.)

Ground 4(ii): alleged unreasonable verdict

1. It is convenient to address ground 4(ii) before turning to grounds 4(i) and 5 because ground 4(ii) requires the evidence to be surveyed at length.

The applicable principles

1. In Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29 (Filippou) at [12], the High Court held that the approach to be adopted by this Court when considering the reasonableness of a conviction flowing from a judge alone trial is the same as that confirmed in M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63 as being the correct approach following a jury trial.
2. This Court is required to view the trial judge's reasons for verdict with circumspection, so as not to be diverted by his Honour's findings from its task of independently assessing the evidence with a view to determining whether it was open to the tribunal of fact (in this case, the trial judge) to be satisfied of the applicant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt: Dansie v The Queen (2022) 274 CLR 651; [2022] HCA 25 (Dansie) at [16]. However, the applicant accepted that this Court could regard those of the trial judge's findings which were not disputed as an accurate reflection of the evidence and that this approach was not inconsistent with the independent review required to be taken: Dansie at [16]; Filippou at [83].
3. Further, there were several matters which the applicant put in issue at trial, which were no longer contested on appeal. These matters included the evidence of JC which was accepted for the purposes of the appeal, with limited exceptions (referred to below).
4. The Crown informed this Court that, for the purposes of ground 4(ii), it no longer relied on any of COG (1)-(5) as amounting to a consciousness of guilt. Accordingly, it is not necessary for the Court to undertake for itself, the task of determining in respect of each of COG (1)-(5), whether the alleged lie met the Edwards conditions.

The competing hypotheses

1. Ms Rigg expressly eschewed any hypothesis that, although the deceased was alive at 3pm on 9 January 1982 (according to the applicant), she was killed by the applicant at some later time.
2. In these circumstances, I consider that there were only two competing non-fanciful hypotheses which explained the deceased's disappearance on and from 9 January 1982 as follows: 1. the applicant murdered the deceased prior to noon on 9 January 1982 when he arrived at the Northbridge Baths (for which the Crown contended); or 2. the deceased voluntarily left the Bayview house, the applicant, her children, her family, her friends and her employment and did not have any contact with them again (which the applicant contended could not be excluded beyond reasonable doubt).
3. In particular, the hypothesis that the deceased might have committed suicide can be excluded since, had she done so, it would have been inevitable that her body would have been found and that there would be some indication of the act (leaving aside the evidence that showed that she was resolute about caring for her children, was very close to her mother and siblings and well-supported by her friends, had no history of mental illness and had already weathered the storm created by the applicant leaving her and the children on 23 December 1981).
4. At its highest, Ms Rigg intimated that the Crown could not exclude the hypothesis that the deceased was still alive on 9 January 1982 because she wanted to have a break from the situation to think about things, was happy to leave her children with the applicant because he was a capable father and well able to look after them by himself and knew that her mother would provide back-up childcare support if required. This hypothesis may have appeared reasonable as at 9 January 1982, for example, when the deceased's mother first learned that the deceased was not coming to the Northbridge Baths but it needs to be assessed having regard to the evidence as a whole.

Evidence which does not need to be considered

1. The trial judge rejected the evidence of some witnesses, including because they had been influenced by Hedley Thomas, whose actions in interviewing them for his podcast contaminated their evidence, rendering it unreliable. The applicant accepted, and the Crown agreed, that the following evidence does not need to be addressed for the purposes of addressing the grounds of appeal: 1. evidence of the following witnesses (listed in alphabetical order) Deborah Brassey, Jill Breese, Peter Breese, Sandra Casey, Colin Casey, Carol Clark, Susan Cooper, Anna Grantham, Lynette Hutcheon, Ross Hutcheon, Raymond Lee, BM, Linda McCarthy, Robert Silkman, Judith Solomon, Kerry Stantscheff and SOW; 2. evidence of the following witnesses relating to particular topics: 1. the evidence of JC that related to attending a location where the applicant was considering hiring a hitman; 2. the evidence of Elva McBay that related to the alleged sighting of the deceased at the Royal visit in 1983; and 3. the evidence of Annette Leary, Susan Strath, KF and Rosyln McLoughlin regarding bruising to the deceased; and 1. most of the exhibits tendered by the applicant at trial (including material relating to Mr Thomas' podcast) except Exhibit 35 (a transcript of phone intercept material), which Ms Rigg accepted was accurately summarised by the trial judge at [688]-[702].
2. In addition to this evidence, I do not consider that the evidence of Paul Cooper (that he saw the deceased in 1982) ought be taken into account as it was rejected by the trial judge as "completely unreliable" ([136]-[144]).
3. Further, as referred to above, the Crown indicated that it no longer relied on any of COG (1)-(5) as establishing a consciousness of guilt. Accordingly, none of these matters can be relied on as implied admissions to bolster the Crown case. Each is relevant only to the credibility of the applicant's versions. Where the applicant has given a version which, if true, would amount to a hypothesis consistent with innocence, the Crown must persuade the tribunal of fact beyond reasonable doubt that it is not reasonably possible that the version is true.

The facts

1. As noted above, the applicant accepts many of the trial judge's findings for the purposes of this appeal, including for the purposes of determining the unreasonable verdict ground. In some instances where the applicant accepts certain findings for the purposes of the appeal, I will refer to the verdict judgment instead of the evidence. The narrative set out below is not a summary of the transcript, much less a complete summary, but rather a narrative drawn from the significant evidence in the trial, other than that which was rejected by the trial judge.

The deceased and her family

1. The deceased was the third of four children. Her parents Helena and Len Simms lived in Clovelly. The deceased had "very poor" eyesight and had to wear contact lenses and glasses, which she required for reading as well as to recognise people at a short distance. The deceased trained as a nursing sister at the Children's Hospital in Sydney and was very efficient and skilled in caring for children.
2. Her older sister, Pat, lived at Stuarts Point on the Mid North Coast (between Macksville and Kempsey). Pat had no home phone and the nearest public phone was 8kms away. She would keep in touch with the family through Helena's weekly letters and occasional trips to Sydney. Pat and her family would either stay with Helena and Len or park their campervan outside the Bayview house to spend time with the deceased and her family. When Helena died in September 2001 at the age of about 84, Pat became the custodian of her mother's diaries and correspondence which she provided to police after July 2015.
3. The deceased's younger brother, Charles (known as Greg), asked the applicant to be the best man at his wedding to his wife, Merilyn in November 1976. Greg was a member of the NSW Police Force. In 1981, he and his family moved from Winston Hills (a suburb of Sydney) to Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley. Whenever his work required him to attend court in Sydney, he would take the opportunity to visit his parents and the applicant and the deceased.

The applicant and his family

1. The applicant's parents, Sid and Joan Dawson, lived in Maroubra. The applicant had three siblings, Lynette Hutcheon, who was married to Ross; an older brother, Peter, who was a lawyer who specialised in family law and crime; and an identical twin brother, Paul, who was married to Marilyn. The mother of Lynelle, Peter's first wife, left her children when Lynelle was nine years old. Peter's evidence was that, for this reason, he did not regard it as "unusual" when the deceased disappeared on 8 or 9 January 1982 and did not contact her family thereafter.
2. Lynelle described the circumstances of her mother's departure as follows: "… as I was the older child, I remember that she took me down the back yard, she had a little chat with me, and the words were: 'Lynelle, I don't want to go.' And I said: 'Mum, don't go.' And we had a bit of a chit-chat, and off I went as a child to my friend's house to play. And that was it, she left."
3. After Lynelle's mother left the family home, she moved to Rockdale and lived in a boarding house where Lynelle visited her "a few times" before they lost touch. Subsequently, Lynelle learned that her mother had moved to New Zealand and married again before she died.
4. The applicant had a very close relationship with his twin brother. They both attended Sydney Boys High School; played rugby together for the same teams; socialised together; and, from about 1977, lived two doors away from each other in Bayview, a distance of about 400-500m. They both worked as teachers and also as lifeguards at the Northbridge Baths. In 1979, they coached the first team at the Gosford Rugby League Club, where Raymond Butlin was appointed the team manager.

The marriage of the applicant and the deceased and their family

1. The applicant and the deceased met when they were at school. They married in March 1970 when they were both 21 years old. For the first few years of their marriage, the deceased had difficulty conceiving a child. The couple had considered adoption and had asked their friend, Phillip Day, to be their referee. Phillip Day had known the applicant since 1961 and the deceased since 1964 and had been a groomsman at their wedding. After he had filled in the adoption forms, he visited them on New Year's Eve 1976. They told him that the deceased (who had undergone surgery which allowed conception) was pregnant.
2. Mr Day died before the trial but had made a statement for the inquest into the deceased's death dated 21 February 2001, and gave evidence on 27 February 2003 at the second inquest into the deceased's death. The statement and transcript were tendered in the Crown case.
3. Before XD was born, the deceased met Robyn Warren through their husbands, who were both then teachers at North Sydney Boys High School. The deceased and Robyn became friends and used to play tennis together at the Roseville tennis club. Ms Warren would often collect the deceased and, subsequently, her children, as the deceased did not have a driver's licence.
4. In 1977, XD was born and they moved into the Bayview house. Paul, Marilyn and their three children lived in the same street, a few doors down.
5. In 1979, YD was born. Merilyn Simms (Greg's wife) observed that the deceased suffered symptoms of post-natal depression for a short period (three or four months) after the births of both of her daughters, each of whom was born by Caesarean section.
6. The deceased was a devoted mother who "absolutely adored" her children ([267]) and was very proud of them ([270]). The applicant's sister, Pat, described the deceased as a "good", "loving" mother ([275]) and was not aware of any occasion on which the deceased had gone away without the children ([273]). Julie Andrew, who lived next door, described her as "very caring. Very loving. Very tender. Extremely patient. A mother more so than I was … an inspiration" and "very house proud [and] had a beautiful eye for decoration", although the applicant "held her on a pretty tight rein when it came to her housekeeping money". Ms Andrew's view was that the deceased "would never have been parted from her children" because "she had such a tough time becoming pregnant and having her babies and she was just so connected to them". Marilyn Dawson could not recall any occasion on which the deceased had gone away without her children.

The circumstances of their meeting

1. In 1979, at about the time YD was born, the applicant was working as a physical education teacher at Cromer High School, where JC, who was born in February 1964, was a student. She was then aged 15 and in Year 10. Her parents had divorced in 1977. She had a good relationship with her father, with whom she had a lot in common. Because JC's mother did not encourage the children to spend time with their father after their divorce, JC did not see him much. JC lived with her mother, whose new partner, Ray, was "violent and aggressive …, controlling". He and her mother "both drank quite heavily each night".
2. In 1980, the applicant told JC that he had been attracted to her when he first saw her in 1979 and wanted to get to know her better. By 1980, the applicant was infatuated with JC, who was then 16 years old and in Year 11.

The applicant's behaviour towards potential rivals for JC

1. At that time, JC was working as a casual employee at Coles Dee Why on Thursday nights and Saturday mornings. PS, a boy who was slightly younger than JC, also worked there and was responsible for various tasks, including collecting shopping trolleys. PS asked JC to the movies and the Collaroy Plateau disco, which were popular venues in the area.
2. On one occasion, PS was in the Coles carpark, collecting trolleys when he was approached by a "very large man", who called out, "Hey you," came up close to him and "shoved [him] against the concrete ramp that went on an angle up to the store and he sort of backed [him] into that concrete structure and … held [him] against the structure." PS recognised the man as the applicant because Paul Dawson had been his rugby coach and he knew that the brothers had played for the Newtown Jets. The applicant said to PS, "I just want you to stay away from her. Don't go near her or else". PS, who described himself as "very small" and "very scared", responded, "I don't know what you're talking about." The man responded, "[J], [JC]." The man left and PS "retreated … got the trolleys and went back up the ramp and … was probably in shock". When asked in evidence whether he ever asked JC on a date again, he responded, "Oh no. Of course not".

The deceased's work and financial circumstances

1. In about March 1980, the Warringah Shire Council established Warriewood Children's Centre, a childcare centre within a shopping complex known variously as Warriewood Square or Narrabeen Shopping Centre. The childcare centre was managed by Barbara Cruise. On 31 March 1980, the deceased obtained a position there as a casual worker, looking after the children up to 2 years' old. She had previously worked for the Council in a similar position from about 1976. It was necessary that there be a nurse on staff, as well as childcare workers.
2. The deceased was paid fortnightly in cash. Ms Cruise observed that the deceased "always seemed to be short of money". At some time, the deceased's bankcard statement came to be sent to her at work. It was Ms Cruise's understanding that the deceased did not want the applicant to know that she had her own bankcard.

The initial sexual approach by the applicant to JC and its escalation

1. In 1980, when the applicant was JC's "sports coaching" teacher, JC and her friends were helping the applicant at a district carnival. JC was sitting on tiered steps and the applicant put his hand on her leg. Subsequently, JC told the applicant that she wanted a particular school bag which he bought for her and, from time to time, would leave love notes for her in the bag. Because JC was then only 16, he used the code-name, "God", when referring to himself, in his love notes at least until she came of age. The applicant first proposed marriage to JC when she was 16 and continued to propose to her until she accepted in 1981 while she was still at school.
2. Also in 1980, JC would see the applicant and Paul at the Time and Tide Hotel in Cromer on Friday nights when she and her friends gathered there. The applicant informed JC that they had told their wives that they had gone to the library (the applicant was studying for a Bachelor of Arts degree at the time) but would instead go to the hotel. The applicant, who did not drink alcohol himself, bought JC alcoholic drinks on such occasions.
3. In about mid-1980, JC and a male school friend, RH, invited the applicant and the deceased to play tennis with them. The applicant raised the subject of babysitting and JC agreed to perform babysitting services for his children at the Bayview house. JC lived in Collaroy Plateau at the time and the applicant would pick her up from either her home (if it was a weekend) or from school (if it was a school day) and drive her to the Bayview house to do so. Sometimes, she would stay the night and the applicant would drive her either to school or to her home the following morning. In July 1980, JC babysat at the Bayview house for XD and YD's combined birthday party.
4. When JC and RH were at the end of Year 10 or Year 11, RH was romantically interested in her and wanted to ask her out (JC was not aware of his intentions). RH trusted the applicant, who was his rugby coach, and would seek his advice on "sport, family, girlfriends". RH told the applicant of his hope of asking JC out and devised a plan whereby the applicant would go to JC's house and when RH, who worked as a paper boy, had finished his paper run RH would visit JC's home. RH envisaged that the applicant would then depart the scene, providing RH with the opportunity of asking JC out. However, when RH arrived, the applicant answered the door and told him that the plan was aborted. RH, who could see JC inside the house behind the applicant, "left in confusion, rode off". He did not have a "real conversation" with the applicant after this experience. The next time RH saw JC, which was days or weeks later, she was sitting on the applicant's lap in his office at Cromer High School.

JC's move into the Bayview house in October 1981

1. In 1981, JC's home life remained disrupted. On one occasion, JC intervened between her step-father and her mother, which led to her father being called and JC having to leave the house. At about this time, October 1981, the applicant invited JC to live in the Bayview house on the pretext that it would provide an environment which was more conducive to study. The deceased reluctantly agreed as she did not want to go against the applicant and felt sorry for JC.
2. When the deceased told Ms Warren when she was visiting that the applicant wanted the babysitter to move in, Ms Warren responded, "You can't. You can't do that, Lyn. You and Chris need to talk. You need to talk." The deceased said, "What can I do? Christopher wants to move [JC] into the house" and mentioned that JC did not have a "good family life at home". This was not the first time Ms Warren had heard JC's name.
3. While JC was living at the Bayview house, she observed that the applicant would refer to the deceased as "fatso" and sang songs which put her down.
4. At about this time, the deceased confided in Ms Cruise that she had some marital problems arising from the fact that her husband had lost interest in her and that, at his request, the babysitter moved into the home. Ms Cruise's impression was that the deceased was "fairly naïve about it" and that the deceased's concern was "for the young lady because apparently she had a difficult home life". Ms Cruise told police: "… [The deceased] said to me that, um, no, the kids would, would be - Chris - or the kids loved Chris and he's an excellent father and I think she sort of was devaluing herself which is, which is where I think she'd come to. With all the, all the things that she was doing she certainly had lost, had lost her self-esteem and that, that she thought Chris was um an excellent father and that, um, you know, the kids would be maybe better off with, with Chris than with her."
5. In re-examination, Ms Cruise confirmed that the deceased had only expressed this sentiment to her once.
6. The deceased also confided in other work colleagues. When Ms Strath told her that she did not think that it was a good idea to have the babysitter living in, the deceased said that nothing would happen because "my Chris would never do anything that was wrong". Ms Strath said in evidence that the applicant was "always on a pedestal" for the deceased. However, the deceased also told Ms Strath, "I'm not happy about [JC] living there but she's got nowhere else to live".

The applicant's nose operation and the departure of JC from the Bayview house

1. The applicant went to Mona Vale Hospital on 2 November 1981 to have an operation on his nose. On 5 November 1981, JC visited the applicant in hospital after school. While she was there, she wiped his nose because it was "dribbling". As it happened, the deceased's parents came to the hospital to visit the applicant at about that time and saw JC there, as Mrs Simms noted in her diary. Mrs Simms spoke on the phone to the deceased that evening for over an hour and told her that the deceased's father (Len) said that JC "should go". It can be inferred that they spoke about what the deceased's parents had observed in the hospital, which can be taken to have betrayed that the applicant and JC were sexually intimate.
2. After JC had visited the applicant in hospital, she went to work at her part-time job at Coles. On her return to the Bayview house later that evening, the deceased accused her of taking liberties with the applicant. That night, JC went to Paul and Marilyn's place and slept in the study. After JC's departure from the Bayview house that evening, JC never saw the deceased again. JC continued to live at Paul and Marilyn's until 23 December 1981 when she and the applicant left for the Gold Coast intending to start their new life together. After the first night, JC slept in the bedroom of Paul and Marilyn's youngest daughter.
3. The applicant was discharged from Mona Vale Hospital on 6 November 1981.
4. Marilyn explained the circumstances in which JC came to live in her home as follows: "I think Lyn didn't want [JC] to stay in Chris and her home any longer and she had nowhere to go because her mother was an alcoholic and her mother's partner was leering and touching her and she had nowhere to go and I said that - I agreed that she could stay with us while she finished her HSC."

The commissioned portraits of XD and YD

1. In late November 1981, Kristin Hardiman, who was studying fine arts and education, set up a stall at a Christmas Fair at Narrabeen High School to sell her own artworks and to obtain commissions for art works. She was approached by the deceased, who was with her two children (one in the stroller and the other walking beside it) and another woman. The deceased asked about getting drawings done of her children. She gave Ms Hardiman her phone number and made arrangements for her to come to the Bayview house to take photographs of the children.
2. In early December 1981, Ms Hardiman visited the Bayview house at the appointed time. The deceased was there with her daughters who were dressed in "beautiful pink broderie anglais[e] dresses" and whose hair was "beautifully done". The process of taking the photographs "probably took an hour or two". Some of the photographs taken on the day and sketches which Ms Hardiman did of the children in early January 1982 were tendered.

The North Manly unit

1. After JC had moved to Paul and Marilyn's house, the applicant and JC inspected a unit in North Manly with the owner. The applicant put down a $200 deposit to secure the unit for lease. However, according to JC, the applicant's brother, Peter, who was a solicitor, told him that if the applicant moved out of the Bayview house, the applicant would jeopardise his rights with respect to that property. In response, the applicant told JC, "We're not doing it because I don't want to lose my property".
2. Peter denied that the topic of the dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and the deceased ever came up in conversation between him and the applicant. Further, he denied having advised the applicant that if he left his marriage with the deceased he would lose 60-70% of the matrimonial assets and custody of the children because that would have been "very poor advice" and he did not know that there were problems in the applicant's marriage until after Christmas 1981.

The trampoline incident

1. In about December 1981, Ms Andrew heard "loud crying … wailing". When she went to the boundary of their properties to see what the noise was, she saw the deceased "backed up against the trampoline" by the applicant. She described that "he had at least one hand on her shoulder … he was a huge man towering over her and screaming at her and she was crying". Ms Andrew was "really frightened" for the deceased. She did not hear much of the conversation but she heard the deceased say, "What are you doing to us Chris?". At about this time, YD "toddled out" and the deceased picked her up and said, "gosh, what's daddy doing to us?". The deceased, the applicant and YD "immediately" went back into the house.
2. A few hours later, Ms Andrew rang the deceased to see if she was all right. The two women met and the deceased told her how worried she was about JC moving into the house. Ms Andrew said in evidence: "… when I started to bring that up Lyn became defensive and sort of tried to shut it down and I just, I had to shake her up. I was not a woman prone to swearing but I, I said, 'Lyn, you can't have her move in here. He's fucking the babysitter'. They were my exact words."
3. When Ms Andrew was asked for the basis for this allegation, her evidence was: "It was from a build-up of things that was happening that Lyn had told me about of, of coming home from work early with a migraine and finding them in her bed and then him talking his way out of it. She told me that and I kept thinking, I said, 'What, what, how can you talk your way out of that?' And she said, 'Well, no, I'm sure everything is okay. She just didn't feel well and he was looking after her'."
4. This was the last time Ms Andrew ever had any contact with the deceased.
5. At some later time, the deceased came to the laundry door of Ms Andrew's house and knocked. Ms Andrew's husband, Malcolm Downie opened the door. His evidence of this interchange was: "… I opened it and she was all nervy and upset. And she said, 'Is Julie here?' I said, 'No, she's gone to tennis', or she'd gone out anyway. Anyway, I said, 'Are you all right?' And she said, 'Oh marital problems'. And I said, 'Oh, join the club. Things haven't been going too well here either.' And that was pretty much the conversation. Q. You said that she was upset. What is it that you saw or heard that led you to form the opinion that Lynette Dawson was upset? A. Only she looked stressed, and she didn't have the kids with her. That was strange; that woman never went without her children."

The Christmas party in early December 1981

1. On Tuesday 6 December 1981, the deceased and the applicant attended a Christmas party at her parents' house at Clovelly. Helena Simms recorded in her diary: "Chris said again 'I only want to look after my 2 little girls!' I said, 'what about Lyn? He said, 'She's in the kitchen where she belongs!!'"
2. Greg Simms also gave evidence about this event. He recalled being in the dining room of his parents' place, which was next to the kitchenette, where his mother was cooking. The deceased, the applicant, XD and YD were also there. According to Greg, "out of the blue he turned to [Helena] and just said, 'Look at my two darling little girls.'". Helena turned to him and said, "What about your darling big girl out on the verandah?", referring to the deceased who was on the verandah talking to Len, their father. The applicant said, "She can get in the bloody kitchen where she belongs." There was no response by anyone present. When it was put to Mr Simms in cross-examination that the applicant had said this in a "joking and friendly fashion", he responded: "To my perception at the time … it was said with venom. It was very strong. My mother didn't have a reply to that. She was just quiet and went back to her cooking. And if it would have gone any further, I felt that I would have had to have stood up, but I didn't, I sat there when it stopped."

The proposed sale of the Bayview house

1. On 21 December 1981, without first consulting the deceased, the applicant retained a real estate agent to sell the Bayview house. He signed a sale agreement on that date. A copy of the agreement was found in the pocket of the deceased's dressing gown when it was returned in a garbage bag to Helena's place in Clovelly. Greg was there when the applicant arrived with the deceased's belongings in "big green plastic bags".

The Gold Coast trip

1. On 22 December 1981, the deceased went to work at the Warriewood Children's Centre and then did a "big … grocery shop" at Warriewood Square in readiness for Christmas. She waited outside for the applicant to pick her up but after an hour of waiting, she rang Paul to ask where the applicant was. Paul said that he did not know (although the applicant and JC left for Queensland from his house first thing the following morning). The deceased caught a taxi home. On her arrival she found a note from the applicant on the bed, which read, "Don't paint too bad a picture of me to the girls." The deceased saw that the applicant's clothes and his pillow had gone and rang her mother, who managed to communicate with Pat (through a neighbour who had a home phone). The deceased spoke to her mother and Pat about it. Pat described the deceased as "very upset about it" as she did not have much money or a car and had to look after the two girls.
2. During the phone conversation with the deceased (which was necessarily hurried as Pat was using a public phone which she had to feed with coins), Pat invited her to come and stay for Christmas. The deceased gave various reasons for refusing: she did not have enough money; she could not drive; she did not want to risk losing her job (which required her to return to work in the new year after the Christmas break); and also that she wanted to stay at home, in case "Chrissy comes home".
3. That night when the deceased put her daughters to bed, she kissed them and said that the kiss was from the applicant and that he had gone on a short holiday. The deceased was also concerned because she wanted to give them a cubby house for Christmas which had not yet been paid for.
4. Helena Simms' diary of 22 December 1981 recorded: "Chris 'shot through' left Lyn + 2 girls on their own."
5. When Greg Simms was visiting his mother in Clovelly shortly before Christmas, he learned that the applicant had left the Bayview house, apparently permanently in light of the note he had left for the deceased. Greg invited the deceased to come to Aberdeen, a town in the Hunter Valley between Scone and Muswellbrook, to spend Christmas with him and his family. However, she declined, saying (as she had to Pat) that she wanted to stay in the house in case the applicant came home. On that occasion, the deceased mentioned that the applicant wanted to sell the Bayview house but that, as she did not want to, she had refused to sign a document. Greg had no further contact with the deceased after this conversation.

Christmas 1981

1. On Christmas morning the applicant phoned the deceased, saying that he was in Aberdeen (near Muswellbrook in the Hunter Valley) and would be back the following morning. The deceased rang her mother who noted it in her diary.
2. The applicant and JC arrived at Paul and Marilyn's place on the morning of Christmas Day before Paul and Marilyn left to go to his parents' (Sid and Joan Dawson's) place at Maroubra for Christmas lunch. The applicant told them not to tell the deceased that he and JC were at their place that day. When asked how she responded to this instruction, Marilyn said: "I know I wasn't happy, but I'm not confrontational, so I probably didn't say anything because I felt torn between helping Chris and trying to help Lyn and Chris' family, his parents probably didn't know where he was and I just felt upset that I was in that situation."
3. Marilyn's recollection was that the applicant and JC spent most of the day in Paul's and her bed because of driving all night. By contrast, Paul said that he did not recall any visitors on Christmas morning and said that, at the end of 1981 both the applicant and the deceased were "very positive" about the state of their marriage. He said that his recollection was that the applicant had phoned him on Christmas Day and told him that he would not be joining them for Christmas. Paul later said that he knew that he spoke to the applicant on Christmas Day but could not recall whether it was face-to-face or on the phone. Paul denied that he knew that the applicant was with JC on Christmas Day.
4. For Christmas, the applicant gave JC a Christmas card in an envelope on which was written, "JMD xxx", which JC understood to imply that they would marry and she would become Mrs Dawson. The applicant had written on the card, "To my darling [J], all my love on our first real Christmas together. Knowing I'll love you more each day, wishing only of your happiness forever…" ([183]) The applicant and JC spent Christmas night at the Forest High gym, to which they had access because Paul worked as a teacher there.
5. The deceased spent Christmas Day with the applicant's family (Sid and Joan, Paul and Marilyn, Lynelle, Peter and their children) at his parents' place at Maroubra. Marilyn could not recall whether she or Paul gave the deceased and her children a lift to Maroubra that day. Paul was upset at Christmas 1981 because it was the first Christmas he had ever spent without the applicant. The deceased comforted him and assured him that everything would be all right between her and the applicant.

Boxing Day 1981 to New Year 1982

1. On 26 December 1981, JC told the applicant that she did not want to continue the relationship. In cross-examination, she denied that this was a mutual decision, insisting that it was her own. At her request, the applicant drove JC to her mother's place. After an hour, he returned and drove JC to her eldest sister's home in Neutral Bay, where JC stayed for about a week.
2. The applicant visited JC almost every day at Neutral Bay and on New Year's Eve he took her to the headland at Manly Point.
3. On 31 December 1981, Helena noted in her diary: "Chris off on his own on yacht party! Refused to take Lyn & 2 girls to see the yacht."

Early January 1982

1. On New Year's Day 1982, Pat Jenkins rang the deceased because it had been their father's birthday the previous day and she had missed the date. Her understanding was that the applicant was back living in the Bayview house with the deceased and their children. The deceased told her that the applicant had gone to a "yachting party" for New Year's Eve and when she asked if she and the girls could go with him, he said, "no". When the deceased asked if he could drive XD and YD down to the park so that they could sit and watch the boats, he also declined. This was the last time Pat Jenkins had any contact with the deceased.
2. Helena noted in her diary for 1 January 1982: "Sid & Joan drove Lyn & Children down here for few days. C home sea sick all night."
3. At about this time, the deceased had told Pat that she was very excited about her daughter starting school that year and had already purchased a school uniform for her.
4. Helena noted in her diary for 2 January 1982: "Lyn children & me to Bondi Jn shops. Chris rang. [XD] upset at not going to Northbridge with him. Chris rang again. Dad [Len] caused an upset, held [XD] back from phone from talking to her Dad."

JC's trip to South West Rocks

1. In early January 1982, JC went to South West Rocks on the mid-north coast of New South Wales to avoid staying with the applicant who was putting a lot of pressure on her to be with him, which she did not want because she was "just a child". At that time, two of JC's sisters were staying in a caravan owned by their father at South West Rocks. KL, a friend of JC's from school, drove to South West Rocks with her boyfriend and slept in a tent in the camping ground. MC was also in South West Rocks.
2. Before she left, the applicant "begged" her to make a reverse-charge call to him at the Bayview house every day of her absence.
3. JC flew to Kempsey with a friend, VE, and VE's boyfriend. They caught a taxi from the Kempsey airport to the caravan park at South West Rocks. JC phoned the applicant at home every day from a public phone box near the caravan "[b]ecause he asked [her] to"; he was "very persistent and overbearing"; she did not feel that she had a choice; and she "did what she was told". The applicant wanted to know what she was doing and told her that he was suffering from hives and gastric problems (the identical symptoms to those which she had suffered when they left Sydney for Queensland on 23 December 1981) and that he missed her terribly and could not live without her. He did not talk about himself at all or his own family life.

Family movements in early January 1982

1. On Sunday 3 January 1982, the applicant went to Helena's place at Clovelly to pick up the deceased and XD and YD (who had been there since New Years Day). XD did not speak to him, as noted by Helena in her diary.
2. On Monday 4 January 1982, Mrs Simms wrote to her daughter, Pat, and her husband, Ron, as she did every week, as follows: "Dad & I had a very quiet Xmas at Aberdeen. I didn't feel like going really, but Lyn was going over to Joan + Sid's very early, would be in company most of the time, as it was when I rang her Xmas morning she'd heard from Chris who was at Ballina & was coming home the next morning. Sid reckons he'll come out of it in time, but things have been very traumatic, especially when he took off again New Years Eve for a yachting party, so she was alone again with the children. [XD] is being very possessive with her father + [YD] is just so aggressive at the moment + will give you a whack with her fist anytime she feels like it & very demanding, so with all the stress + strain on Lyn it sure is telling in her face. Saddest Xmas I've had. Lyn wants Chris to go to see the Doc, is this Tuesday, I think, to see what is making him so angry with her. Sid is so sad about the whole thing, and Joan seems to feel Lyn hasn't been helpful. The way I read it. Paul has left for Queensland today, so maybe he'll not have him to go to at the drop of a hat + have to stand on his own for a few weeks. Lyn + children were here on Friday, New Years Day + stayed till Sunday morning when Chris called & collected them after he had played touch football. …"
3. Mrs Simms' letter indicates that, as far as she was aware, Paul and Marilyn and their family left for Lake Munmorah on 4 January 1982. Marilyn said that they "borrowed Aunty Audrey's [Paul's aunt's] caravan and we packed up our children and we drove to Lake Munmorah and stayed for a holiday in the caravan". She estimated that they stayed there for about a week.
4. At about this time, the applicant phoned Phillip Day to apologise for not sending the usual Christmas card to him. He explained that he and the deceased were experiencing marital difficulties and that he wanted to speak to him about them at the Northbridge Baths on Saturday 9 January 1982.
5. On Thursday 7 January 1982, Ms Strath saw the deceased at work. The deceased told her that "it wasn't a very happy Christmas because [the applicant] had left but he was back now." The deceased was "upset" but, as she was "very professional", she did not cry. The deceased told Ms Strath, "Everything looks like it's going to be fine because we're going to see a marriage psychologist the next day, on the Friday".

8 January 1982

1. On Friday 8 January 1982, the deceased went to work at the Warriewood Children's Centre. During her lunch break, she and the applicant went to a marriage counsellor. After the session, her work colleagues observed that she and the applicant were holding hands and she seemed to be "quite bright and bubbly". On her return to work that afternoon, the deceased was "very happy" and told Ms Strath, "Oh, it was really good, really positive, and I'm hoping that we can move forward and work together".
2. On Friday afternoon or early evening, Phillip Day phoned the Bayview house to confirm arrangements to meet the applicant at the Northbridge Baths on Saturday 9 January 1982. The deceased spoke to him as the applicant was asleep. Although Phillip, who did not particularly like talking on the phone did not raise the topic, the deceased volunteered that earlier that day she and the applicant had attended marriage counselling. She also told him that she would pass on his message to the applicant that he would meet him at the pool. Phillip considered that the deceased was "speaking quite normally", was "very calm and relaxed … warm and friendly" and "sounded confident that the marriage would be repaired".
3. Later that evening, Helena phoned the deceased. She reported the conversation to her husband, Len, and her children, Pat and Greg, and noted in her diary: "… L & C to psychiatrist. Rang Lyn, sounded half sozzled said all was well. Tell Pat & Greg & Pop."
4. In a subsequent letter to Pat dated 21 January 1982, Helena said that the deceased had also told her in this conversation that she and the applicant "were going for a 5 day laze on the beaches, seeing the children were going away". This indicates that, as at 8 January 1982, there were plans for XD and YD to be looked after by others in mid-January 1982.
5. The Crown alleged that on or about 8 January 1982 (the weekend after JC had gone away) the applicant, alone or with the assistance of another or others, murdered the deceased, his wife of almost 12 years, and that, at that time or later, the applicant, possibly with assistance, disposed of her body which has never been found.

9 January 1982: the Northbridge Baths

1. In 1982, the applicant and his brother Paul worked part-time as lifeguards at the Northbridge Baths. Col Stubbing leased the baths at the time. There was a single phone at the baths on the counter, out of sight of customers.
2. In 1982, CB, who was then 14 or 15, worked occasionally as a part-time casual in the shop there. CB recalled that on one occasion in the summer of 1981/1982 she picked up the phone and heard long distance pips. A female asked to speak to one of the Dawson twins but she could not recall which (she could not distinguish the applicant from Paul). She found the person, who went to take the call but did not hear anything of the contents of the call. CB first made a statement to police in 2016.
3. At the time of the call, CB recalled that Mr Stubbing was still there and "was standing very close to either Chris or Paul who she called over to take the phone call, and they were talking together".
4. JM also worked at the Northbridge Baths in the summer of 1981/1982 although much more frequently than CB did. Depending on the number of people there, she might work from 8am until 6pm. She was paid in cash by reference to the number of hours worked. In her diary for 9 January 1982, JM wrote: "January 9, Saturday, 1982, worked in shop, 8 to 5.30. Didn't get any money because, as usual, Col left at 12 and Chris Dawson never pays."
5. Apart from her diary entry, JM had no recollection of that day and, in particular, had no recollection of taking a call for the applicant that day. She did not recall CB working that day and said that when she was working with someone else (apart from Mr Stubbing, who was generally there) she had mentioned it in her diary.
6. Phillip Day arrived at the Northbridge Baths sometime between 2pm and 3pm. Helena (whom he knew as he was a childhood friend of the applicant) was already there with XD and YD. He started to talk with the applicant who told him that "he had been away around Christmas and that he was keen to make the marriage work and to sort out the problems that he and [the deceased] were having." Mr Day recalled that the applicant was summoned to the office to take a call. On his return, he told Phillip that the call was from the deceased who was going away for a few days to "sort herself out". The applicant also told Phillip that the deceased had asked him (in the phone call) to drive Helena, XD and YD to Helena's place at Clovelly. Phillip left with them while the applicant finished his shift at the Northbridge Baths.

The applicant's call to JC and his collection of her from South West Rocks

1. On about 10 January 1982, in the last of JC's calls to the applicant from South West Rocks, the applicant said to JC, "Lyn's gone. She's not coming back. Come back to Sydney and help me look after the children and be with me". This was the only time he had mentioned the deceased in their phone calls while JC was away. Although JC accepted that it was not in her statement dated 17 May 1990 that the applicant had said that Lyn was not coming back, she was adamant in cross-examination that the applicant had definitely told her that the deceased was not coming back and had not said that he did not know whether the deceased was coming back. On appeal, the applicant contested the finding that the applicant had said that the deceased was not coming back (made in verdict judgment [187]) and submitted that this Court ought be "cautious about the alleged conversation".
2. JC agreed to come back with the applicant to Sydney to live with him. The applicant arranged for XD and YD to be looked after on the night of 10 January 1982 and dropped them off before leaving for South West Rocks to pick JC up. He drove through the night, slept in the car and arrived there at dawn.
3. KL was sitting beside JC on the beach when she saw the applicant standing by a car "off in the distance". KL asked JC, who had her back to the applicant, "What's he doing here?", to which JC responded, "I don't know". KL described JC as being "hunched up and … sort of turned away from where [the applicant] was". According to KL, JC "collapsed her body and cringed". KL did not see JC again until after JC had left the applicant, which was in 1990 (see below).
4. In the day or days prior to the applicant's arrival, a male friend, CN, heard JC and her female friends talking about the possibility that the applicant would come. CN said that the applicant "turned up and said [to JC] 'we're going'". CN estimated that the applicant was only at South West Rocks for ten or fifteen minutes.
5. JC and one of her sisters met the applicant on the beach at South West Rocks. JC's imminent departure came as a shock to MC, who was in the campground when the applicant arrived. MC said in evidence: "I didn't know she was going to leave. I thought she was there with us, and I was really happy about that, because I hadn't seen her a lot in year 11 or in year 12, and I was so happy that she was there, and I didn't know that she was going to leave, and then all of a sudden she was gone."

The return of JC to Sydney

1. The applicant drove JC and one of her sisters (who needed a lift) back to Sydney. JC's recollection was that they arrived back in Sydney on 10 or 11 January 1982. This accords with MC's evidence that they left before her birthday on 12 January 1982.
2. The applicant and JC dropped JC's sister off at her place before returning to the Bayview house. As for the applicant's children, JC said: "We might have picked them up on the way home, but they were dropped off somewhere when he drove to pick me up."
3. From the first night of their return, they slept in the same bed which the applicant had formerly shared with the deceased. JC denied that she had stayed at her mother's place first, had only moved in shortly before XD started school and slept in the study. JC explained: "Mr Dawson told me that he had needed my help. He said that Lyn was not coming back, he needed my help with the children. I felt obligated to do that. He'd come up to pick me up from South West Rocks, he's done me a favour, I felt as though I had to do that. I didn't feel like I had a choice."
4. The following exchange occurred in her cross-examination: "Q … Do you agree he needed some assistance with the children? A. He needed assistance with the children. He couldn't cook, he couldn't clean, he couldn't do the washing. Q. And you, I suggest, wanted to be with him? A. No I didn't. Q. And that whilst as your older self, you may look back and think why did I do all that cooking, cleaning, looking after the kids, with respect to you, Ms [C], at the time you were very happy to do it? A. No. I had to look up a cookbook to learn how to do mashed potatoes as the three of them sat at the counter watching me. It was an awful situation."
5. JC was later recalled for further cross-examination. Once again, it was put that after returning from South West Rocks, JC went to live with her mother before moving into the Bayview house, which she again denied, maintaining her evidence that she moved straight into the Bayview house. The following exchange occurred: "Q. And that there was some discussion before that actually occurred? A. No, there was not. He came up to get me to install me into his place to look after his children and take care of all the cooking and cleaning, et cetera, because he told me his wife was not coming back."
6. In the main bedroom of the Bayview house, there was a basket where there were "two diamond rings" and "various costume jewellery" belonging to the deceased. The deceased's underwear was in the drawer and her clothes were in a walk-in robe. As far as JC could judge, the wardrobe and drawers were full. The applicant told JC that she could take anything she wanted of the deceased's belongings. JC took a couple of tops and some pants. In the ensuing days and weeks, the balance of the deceased's personal effects were put into green garbage bags and eventually delivered to the deceased's mother's place.

11 January 1982

1. On Monday 11 January 1982, the deceased was rostered to work at the Warriewood Children's Centre. She did not turn up. The applicant rang Ms Cruise (at work as he did not have her home number) to tell her that the deceased had "gone away and needed some time out and he didn't know when she would be back". Further telephone calls were exchanged between them to the same effect. As at 11 January 1982, the deceased had outstanding pay, which she never collected. Ms Cruise returned it to the pay office.
2. After 11 January 1982, a bankcard statement was delivered to the deceased's work. Ms Cruise opened it because she was "curious" because she "had [her] doubts". She could not recall what the statement disclosed. She rang the applicant and told him that she had received a statement for the deceased. The applicant came to collect it.
3. On about 11 January 1982 (on the basis that they left on 4 January 1982 and stayed away for about a week), Paul and Marilyn Dawson returned with their children from their break at Lake Munmorah. They walked over to the Bayview house and spoke with the applicant and JC who were both at the front door. Marilyn considered the applicant's demeanour to be "perfectly normal" and that he did not seem "upset". However, she also said that he was concerned that the deceased was missing.
4. Ms Simms' diary of Wednesday 13 January 1982 said: "… Lynn didn't phone as promised - upset! No call to Chris either."
5. Subsequent diary entries record the movements of XD and YD, including between grandparents on both sides, as well as Helena's calls to the applicant to find out if he had news of the deceased.

Ms Andrew's observations of the backyard of the Bayview house

1. The applicant made no contact with Ms Andrew about the deceased's whereabouts. In the new year (of 1982), Ms Andrew observed over the fence that JC was beside the pool wearing only a G-string bikini bottom. When Ms Andrew noticed that the deceased was not living in the Bayview house anymore, she "felt that something bad had happened to her". When she was challenged about why she did not go to the police, Ms Andrew explained that at that time "women were disenfranchised" and she herself did not have any experience with family breakdown, domestic violence or the police. She described her inaction as being (with the benefit of hindsight) "to [her] great regret and shame".

The sketches of XD and YD which the deceased had commissioned

1. By mid-January 1982, Ms Hardiman had finished the sketches of XD and YD from the photographs which she had taken in December. She phoned the Bayview house to ask when she could deliver them. The applicant answered the phone and said, "She's gone away and doesn't want them anymore". Ms Hardiman then "asked if he wanted to see the drawings because they were of his children and he said 'no' and that was the end of the conversation. I remember it very very clearly because of - it was so odd".
2. On 21 January 1982, Helena wrote to Pat, reporting on the deceased's disappearance. She said: "Have been trying to write you for a couple of weeks, hoping things would resolve themselves. This will only be a short note + one day I will write a fuller letter with all the news soon. The long + short of it is, Lyn took herself off on the 9th + after 3 phonecalls to Chris + none to me, as promised, we now haven't heard for well over a week. Wont state where she is, only once it was Central Coast, Gosford, … now North. I was with Chris at Northbridge Pool when he had the first call + he was obviously very much affected and emotional. … She was very affected with Chris leaving her + the girls right on Xmas but Chris assures they were 'coming good on the Friday things were happy, yet she'd about turned on the Sat morning. Whether she has cracked under strain or is being vindictive or what the answer is I don't know. … As she told me at one stage she had said to Chris 'You give all your love to your 2 girls, your companionship to your twin brother, where do I come in?' I think now Chris is going to put it in the hands of Missing Persons. Chris has looked after the 2 girls until he took them + Paul's three down to Shoalhaven to Joan + Sid for a 2 week stay. They are supposedly having a holiday but they also have Lynelle's 2 as well so it will certainly be no holiday for Sid + Joan. I've been walking around the house like a 'zombie' sleeping nightmares thrown in. I brought the 2 girls home on the Sat from the pool + took them back on the Sunday. Chris has dropped them in here for a day visit while he dashed into town on business. … Lyn has told Chris on the phone she doesn't care about her job so after C informed them that her return to work is not definite no doubt they will fill the position. Hopefully I will drop you a line in a few days to say all is well. Lyn did say on the Friday night to let you + Greg + M know things were good now, she+ Chris were going for a 5 day laze on the beaches, seeing the children were going away + then she did this about turn after a hassling night with [YD]."

JC's 18th birthday

1. The applicant and JC continued living in the Bayview house with XD and YD. On JC's 18th birthday in February 1982, the applicant gave her a card to mark the occasion. On the envelope, the applicant wrote, "To the most beautiful girl in the world on her 18th birthday". The printed part of the card said, on the cover, "Let's have some good clean fun on your birthday …" Inside the card, the message continued: "… Like taking a bath together! Happy Day!". He wrote the following message: "To my beautiful [J], Hoping it is a Happy Day for you - you deserve every day full of happiness & love. All my love always, Chris xxx". He also wrote the following message to her from his daughters: "Happy Birthday, [J], Thank you for being our [J]. Love the terrible two [XD and YD] x x."
2. Also on her 18th birthday, a photograph was taken of JC in clothes which she identified as having belonged to the deceased.

The missing person's report made by the applicant on 18 February 1982

1. The applicant reported the deceased missing on 18 February 1982. His report is summarised as follows in the missing person's file: "Initial missing persons report: 18 February 1982. Possible destination: North Coast. Reason for inquiry: Concern for welfare Last heard of: [1]5/1/1982 DOB 25/10/1948. Circumstances: Was dropped to shops at Mona Vale at 7am 9/1/82 by Husband - Contacted Husband on 9th 10th at NorthBridge Bath by STD call - Bankcard indicated that she was at Warriewood on the 12th - again called home on 15th - 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." (Emphasis added to highlight the first version the applicant gave about the deceased's bankcard statement.)
2. As a result of the applicant's report, the Missing Persons Unit conducted an investigation into the deceased's disappearance from 1982 until 1991, at which point the matter was investigated as a suspected homicide (as to which see further below).
3. On 27 March 1982, the applicant placed a personal advertisement in the Daily Telegraph which said: "LYN I love you, we all miss you. Please ring. We want you home, Chris."

Alleged sighting by Sue Butlin

1. In about mid-April 1982, Sue Butlin was working at a food barn beside the Pacific Highway at Kulnurra. She knew the deceased as their husbands had an association through the Gosford Rugby League Club and the two couples had built a retaining wall together at the Bayview house. They also socialised together as the Butlins' daughter used to like coming for a swim in the Dawsons' pool. Ms Butlin thought that she saw the deceased and walked towards her but the woman she saw turned around and got into a car and drove off without showing any sign of recognition. This evidence was given by Sue Butlin's husband as she had died before the trial.
2. On 29 April 1982, a report in the Missing Person file for the deceased recorded that the applicant had said that he and the deceased had had marital problems for 18 months and that they had attended a "psychiatrist the day prior (to the deceased's disappearance) to resolve the issue".
3. Helena noted in her diary for 18 May 1982 that she had seen Sue Butlin at Circular Quay and that Sue "thought she saw Lynn 5-6 weeks earlier at Gosford". Helena documented that she had phoned the applicant. On 20 May 1982, Helena again noted the sighting and that she had spoken to the applicant about it.
4. Ms Butlin died in May 1998 without having been interviewed by police about this sighting. Mr Butlin, who was first interviewed by police in 2001, recounted his wife's version. He told police that she was "positive that it was Lyn and she approached Lyn and Lyn moved off".

Ongoing Missing Persons investigation

1. The deceased's family believed, for a time, that the deceased had gone away, but was safe and would return. Pat explained the basis for their collective belief as follows: "When someone just drops out of your life, a much loved person just drops out of your life you don't know what to believe. There's always that little tiny - even when things seem otherwise there is always that little bit of hope that, you know, you're going to find her. And, you know, that was a very distressing time for all of us. So there was, that was a remote possibility but to think otherwise would mean we wouldn't see her again so we had to have hope."
2. On 17 August 1982, the staff of the Missing Persons Unit contacted the applicant and asked him to supply a profile of the deceased. On 17 August 1982, the applicant provided the Antecedent report, which said in part: "Possible Contacts All girlfriends have been contacted- no success. Work colleagues- Warriewood Sq Child Minding Centre- no success … There was a slight possibility of contact with a religious organisation -- Ms Helena Simms ([phone number supplied]), Lyn's mother followed through on this possibility. History-Lyn + I had been having marital problems for app[r]ox 2 years, mainly over her Bankcard spending and financial matters in general. I left home for 3 days over Christmas+ travelled north to be by myself. I returned home on Boxing Day, having missed my wife and daughters and hoping to resolve our differences. We both went to a marriage guidance councillor/psychiatrist on Friday 8th Jan. Everything seemed fine, when I dropped her back at work, we were both in particularly good spirits. We were holding hands+ once again felt close. Later that night, she appeared distressed and had difficulty coping with our youngest daughter. Sat 9 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. 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. Lyn was reportedly seen at Narraweena- reported to her mother also at Gosford by Mrs Sue Butlin [phone number given]. The last contact I had with her was by phone on the 16 Jan 1982. Sgt Brian Gardiner- Manly Detectives has been advising me on procedure C.Dawson 17.8.82"

The dissolution of the marriage of the applicant and the deceased

1. On 23 April 1983, the applicant commenced proceedings seeking an order for dissolution of his marriage to the deceased on the ground of abandonment. A decree nisi order was made on 15 June 1983. Following the dissolution of the marriage, the applicant was awarded all marital assets, including the Bayview house, and sole custody of XD and YD.
2. In July 1984, Jeffrey Linden, the solicitor with carriage of the family law matter on behalf of the applicant, wrote to Helena (presumably as the deceased's next-of-kin) seeking her signature on an enclosed form (which was not identified by the evidence). Helena responded on 27 July 1984: "Dear Sirs, I am in receipt of your letter delivered today and have signed the enclosed form as requested. It would be my dearest wish to be able to comply with your other request but I last saw my daughter on Jan 3, 1982 & last spoke to her over the phone on Jan 8, 1982 + up to this very minute neither her parents, brothers, sisters or friends have had any contact from her. Yours in despair, Helena M Simms"

The marriage of JC and the applicant, their move to Queensland and the birth of KD

1. In January 1984, the applicant and JC married. Photographs of the occasion depict JC wearing rings. When asked where they came from, JC said: "The wedding ring was made from scratch to match his one that he had left from his first marriage and the diamond ring was made using the diamonds from Lyn's engagement ring and eternity ring that she left."
2. In December 1984, the applicant, JC (who by that time was at least eight months' pregnant), XD and YD moved to Queensland. After driving his family to Queensland, the applicant returned to Sydney to pack up the house. On the return trip north, he travelled with his brother, Paul, Marilyn and their three children, who settled nearby. In January 1985, the applicant and JC's daughter, KD, was born. JC was then 20. When she gave birth to KD, JC was overcome with love for KD and realised that she felt very differently towards KD than she did to XD or YD. This led to tension with the applicant which JC considered arose as a result of the applicant's wish to be a family with three children, like Paul's family.

The progress of the investigation into the deceased's disappearance

1. In 1985, Ms Strath wrote to the NSW Ombudsman, asking about the police investigation into the disappearance of the deceased. The investigation in the Missing Persons Unit was not taken up by the Homicide Squad until 1990 (as outlined below).

The applicant's representation about what Ian Kennedy had told him

1. In about 1985, the applicant and Paul attended a Sydney Boys High School reunion, as did Ian Kennedy, who was a police officer in the NSW Police force from 1968 until 2000. Mr Kennedy had no information about the deceased's whereabouts and at no time did he tell the applicant that he had heard a "whisper" that the deceased had moved to New Zealand. To the extent to which the applicant alleged that Mr Kennedy had intimated as much, I reject the applicant's version and put it to one side.

The end of the marriage of JC and the applicant

1. Towards the end of 1989, JC decided to leave the applicant. In January 1990, JC, the applicant, XD, YD and KD went down to Sydney to visit JC's mother, as they usually did at that time of year. In March 1990, JC separated from the applicant and, on 1 March 1990, she commenced proceedings seeking custody of KD. JC subsequently obtained a divorce from the applicant. She obtained custody of KD and the applicant was given rights of access. The property division was resolved by agreement.

The meeting between JC and Greg and Merilyn Simms

1. In 1990, JC arranged to meet Greg and Merilyn Simms. They exchanged details of what they knew of the deceased's disappearance from which it became obvious that there was a stark difference between what the applicant had told JC (that the deceased had gone and was never coming back) and what he had told others (that the deceased had contacted him and told him that she needed a break). JC wanted to alert the police to this.

The Mayger/Wright investigation from 1990-1992

1. JC was first interviewed by police in May 1990 and made a statement dated 17 May 1990. A case management report of the investigation recorded that a number of friends and associates of the deceased were interviewed by police, including Greg and Merilyn Simms. There were also inquiries into bank accounts, social service and tax records.
2. On 15 January 1991, the applicant participated in the ERISP. He was interviewed by Detective Mayger, the officer in charge of the investigation (OIC), who was part of the Major Crime Squad. The applicant's then solicitor, Ms David (who appeared for him in the trial), was present.
3. The applicant made various statements in the ERISP, which were referred to in the verdict judgment. For example, he said: "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 [to] come along to the meetings and getting her literature and all."
4. The case management report recorded, without explanation, that "Inquiries [were] suspended" on 29 May 1992. Detective Mayger gave evidence that, as far as he could recall, it was suspended because of the reference in the Missing Persons file to Ms Butlin having sighted the deceased (which, if true, indicated that the deceased had not been murdered by the applicant). Detective Mayger had never spoken with Ms Butlin.

The investigation conducted by Detective Damian Loone from 1998 to July 2015

1. Ms Strath's criticisms of the Homicide Squad for suspending the investigation in 1982 came to the attention of Inspector Paul Hulme in a social setting. Inspector Hulme revived the investigation and, on 21 July 1998, appointed Detective Loone as the OIC of the investigation and instructed him to take the matter to the Coroner's Court. Detective Loone conducted the investigation until 20 March 2014.
2. During the period of his investigation, Detective Loone and those under his command conducted interviews and took statements, including from JC and her family (her sisters and parents); the deceased's family (Pat, Greg, Merilyn, and Phillip Simms); the applicant's family (Lynette and Ross Hutcheon, Paul, Marilyn and Peter Dawson); the applicant's and deceased's daughters (XD and YD); JC's friends (including VE and PS); the applicant's and deceased's friends (Mr Day); those associated with the Northbridge Baths (Mr Stubbing, CB); the deceased's colleagues from the Warriewood Children's Centre (Ms Warren, Ms Strath and Ms Grantham); the neighbours at Bayview (Ms Andrew); and witnesses relating to potential sightings (Mr Butlin). He also conducted an investigation of the land surrounding the Bayview house.
3. During the course of his investigation, Detective Loone submitted briefs of evidence to the State Coroner. The first inquest (at which no evidence was called) took place in 2001. The second inquest, at which oral evidence was called, took place in 2003.
4. In July 2015, the matter was transferred to the Unresolved Homicide Squad.

The school reunion in about 2007

1. Some time before Phillip Day died in February 2007, there was a "living wake" for him which was attended by several former students from Sydney Boys High School including the applicant and Paul. They were sitting next to each other when Kay Sinclair, whose second husband was an old scholar, engaged in conversation about first and second marriages. Ms Sinclair asked how the applicant's first marriage had ended, to which he responded that his first wife had left him to join a commune in the Blue Mountains. At about this point, Paul volunteered that the applicant's first wife was "a bit crazy".

The investigation conducted by Detective Daniel Poole from July 2015

1. In July 2015, the investigation was allocated to Detective Senior Constable Daniel Poole of the Unsolved Homicide Squad. Pat gave him Helena's diaries and letters.
2. In 2018, the applicant was arrested and charged with the murder of the deceased.

Proof of life enquiries

1. Despite extensive searches, no evidence was obtained to indicate that the deceased was alive after 8 January 1982. The searches established that the deceased has not travelled from Australia on an Australian passport; is not registered with Medicare or the Australian Taxation Office; does not have a driver's licence in any Australian state or territory; has not been located by reference to unidentified bodies or human remains; is not registered as a nurse; is not enrolled as an elector; and is not registered with Centrelink. Despite extensive publicity and two coronial inquests, no person has come forward to offer reliable information about her whereabouts since 8 January 1982. As referred to above, the applicant accepts that it was open to the trial judge to find that the deceased was dead by the time of trial.

Character evidence

1. The applicant adduced evidence from character witnesses who did not accept that he would ever act in an aggressive or violent way and, in particular, did not accept that the person they knew as the applicant would kill his wife.

Other matters

1. The trial judge accepted the anecdotal evidence that the deceased did not have the financial resources to support herself and was generally short of cash ([297]). His Honour also found that the deceased did not contact her employer asking about any money she might have been owed as back pay ([300]).
2. The deceased was described as a "confident, decisive" woman ([261]), who was "intelligent" ([262]). The trial judge found at [262]: "There is no evidence, with the exception of the incident where she apparently reacted badly to some interaction with her daughter on the Friday night before her disappearance, to suggest that Lynette Dawson suffered at any time from a psychiatric or psychological condition that rendered her susceptible to hysterical outbursts or spontaneously irrational decisions."
3. The deceased did not have any physical health conditions which may have explained her sudden departure ([282]).
4. The deceased's belongings which the applicant delivered to Helena's place included "a pair of gardening gloves with dirt still on them, … clothes, … [the deceased's] nurse's badges … that the nurses wore when they were on duty to show they had passed their exams or they were sisters [and] a small blue container with contact lenses in them".

The limited challenge to JC's evidence

1. Ms Rigg challenged the trial judge's acceptance of the whole of JC's evidence and submitted that his Honour ought not to have accepted JC's evidence in so far as JC said that the applicant had told her not only that the deceased had gone (which Ms Rigg did not challenge) but also that she was not coming back. She submitted that the trial judge ought not to have accepted this evidence in circumstances where JC did not include the "not coming back" part of the statement when the police took her statement dated 17 May 1990. She also submitted that this Court, when reviewing the evidence for the purposes of the unreasonable verdict ground, ought not accept this evidence of JC.
2. Having reviewed all of the evidence I accept JC's evidence that the applicant told her, when she called him from South West Rocks on either 9 or 10 January 1982 that the deceased had not only gone but also was not coming back. Almost all aspects of JC's evidence were corroborated in important respects by other witnesses and documentary evidence (including the cards the applicant gave to her).
3. JC's evidence of the applicant's conduct towards her at Cromer High School was corroborated by the love notes he sent to her as well as by the evidence of RH and MC. The applicant thwarted RH's attempt to ask her out and MC noted that, in years 11 and 12, JC no longer spent time with her friends at school because she spent lunch hours with the applicant in his office. The applicant's design to separate her from male contemporaries or friends was also evidenced by PS's evidence of the applicant's intimidation of him in the Coles car park.
4. JC's evidence that she and the applicant returned to Paul and Marilyn's place on Christmas Day 1981, two days after they had set off for Queensland from that same location was corroborated by Marilyn's evidence about their arrival and the applicant's request of his brother that he and JC be permitted to sleep in Paul and Marilyn's bed on Christmas Day.
5. The evidence of JC's friends at South West Rocks also supported JC's evidence that she went straight back to live with the applicant at the Bayview house. The applicant's sense of entitlement to JC was evident from his announcement to her on the beach at South West Rocks, "we're going". That he stayed only about 15 minutes there, after having driven from Sydney, showed that he was intent on retrieving JC for the purpose of appropriating her. Had she intended to live with her mother on her return to Sydney, there would have been no need for him to come and collect her or for her to accompany him when he came since there were any number of people at South West Rocks with whom she could travel back to Sydney.

The alleged hypothesis consistent with innocence

1. Ms Rigg submitted that the Crown could not exclude beyond reasonable doubt the hypothesis that the deceased had chosen to depart the scene, at least for a few days, on 9 January 1982 and that, accordingly, the Crown could not prove that the deceased was dead by lunchtime on that day. She contended that, in light of all that the deceased had gone through - the applicant's conspicuous infidelity to her with JC and the humiliation this had caused her with her family, friends and work colleagues - the reasonable possibility that the deceased might take a break from an intolerable situation, either permanently or temporarily could not be excluded. Ms Rigg relied on the deceased's heartbreak, given her erstwhile adoration of the applicant and belief that he would never do anything wrong (which had proved to be misplaced).
2. The viability of that hypothesis is to be assessed by reference to the deceased as the evidence showed her to be. A woman might choose to leave a family situation made untenable by a husband's infidelity, either with a view to demonstrating to him the enormous consequences of his actions, in the hope of bringing him to his senses and returning him to the family fold, or permanently due to irretrievable breakdown of the relationship. However, the question is whether it is reasonably possible that the deceased, on late 8 January or early 9 January 1982, did so. Although people may behave atypically in situations of stress, I do not discern any indication in the evidence that the deceased would not, as at 8 January 1982, have continued to conduct herself as she had done in the past with a clear resolution to care for her children and protect and maintain her marriage to the applicant which his obsession with JC had placed in jeopardy.
3. The applicant had already, in a real sense, done his worst: by purporting to leave permanently with JC on 23 December 1981. By this act, the applicant had forced the deceased to face the future as a single mother who had been abandoned by her husband. That the applicant had called on Christmas morning to say that he would be home the next day would not necessarily have lessened the shock, although it gave the deceased considerable hope of reconciliation (which she imparted immediately to her mother and later that day to Paul at the Dawson Christmas lunch). The deceased responded quickly and practically to arrange a marriage guidance counselling session to take place on 8 January 1982.

Grounds 4(i) and 5(i) and (ii)

1. These grounds can be addressed together. Grounds 5(i) and (ii) were added in order to permit Ms Rigg to submit that the trial judge's alleged erroneous findings amounted to a miscarriage of justice (as alleged in grounds 5(i) and (ii)) as well as an unreasonable verdict (as alleged in ground 4(i)). She relied on EE v R [2023] NSWCCA 188 (EE) in which this Court (Beech-Jones CJ at CL, myself and Ierace J agreeing) said at [41] that if, in a trial by judge alone, the trial judge used illogical or clearly mistaken reasoning to decide an important question of fact, that could amount to a miscarriage of justice that would result in a retrial.
2. At the outset it is important to confirm that Ms Rigg accepted that although the trial judge categorised the Crown's obligation to negative the applicant's version that the deceased had phoned the applicant at the Northbridge Baths on 9 January 1982 as an "indispensable intermediate fact", this was not necessarily a correct characterisation. It was common ground that, in order to prove the applicant's guilt of the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt, the Crown had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had not phoned the applicant on the afternoon of 9 January 1982 (since if she had she must have been alive). It is therefore unnecessary for present purposes to address Shepherd v The Queen (1990) 170 CLR 573 at 579-580; [1990] HCA 56, the leading case on what will constitute an indispensable intermediate fact.
3. Accordingly, grounds 4(i) and 5(i) and (ii) turn on whether the trial judge's reasons for finding that the Northbridge Baths phone call was excluded beyond reasonable doubt revealed illogical or clearly mistaken reasoning which amounted to a miscarriage of justice.
4. Ms Rigg relied on the structure of the verdict judgment to make out her submission. She submitted that the verdict judgment was, essentially, divided into two parts: the first part being from [1]-[330] and the second part being the balance. Ms Rigg pointed to the heading, "WAS LYNETTE DAWSON ALIVE AFTER 8 JANUARY 1982", above [18] of the verdict judgment. In that section the trial judge identified the three categories of evidence which, if accepted, would prove that the deceased was alive after that time: 1. the Northbridge Baths phone call; 2. the bankcard purchases in January 1982; and 3. the alleged sightings of the deceased.

The application of the proviso

1. Grounds 2 and 3 have been made out. As the Crown relies on the proviso in s 6(1) of the Criminal Appeal Act, it is necessary for this Court to determine whether the trial judge's errors as alleged are made out regarding the use of lies as evincing a consciousness of guilt gave rise to a substantial miscarriage of justice.
2. Prior to the enactment of the proviso, the so-called "Exchequer rule" required that there be a new trial in respect of every departure from a trial according to law. The purpose of the proviso was to obviate the requirement for a new trial in cases where the appellate court is satisfied that there is no substantial miscarriage of justice: Kalbasi v State of Western Australia (2018) 264 CLR 62; [2018] HCA 7 (Kalbasi) at [13] (Kiefel CJ, Bell, Keane and Gordon JJ).
3. The principles which apply to the application of the proviso include the following. First, the Crown must indicate to the Court whether it relies on the proviso in respect of a particular ground of appeal against conviction. Second, the appellate court must itself decide whether a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred: Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300; [2005] HCA 81 (Weiss) at [39] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ). Third, this task is objective and is to be performed by the appellate court on the basis of the record of the trial: Weiss at [39]. Fourth, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the operation of the proviso is that this Court is satisfied that the evidence properly admitted at trial proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the accused's guilt of the offence on which the jury returned its verdict of guilty: Weiss at [44]. Fifth, the appellate court is to consider the nature and effect of the error in every case: Weiss at [44]. Sixth, there is "[n]o single universally applicable description of what constitutes 'no substantial miscarriage of justice'" (emphasis in original): Weiss at [44].
4. The High Court in Kalbasi described the approach to be taken by this Court as follows at [12]: "… The determination of whether, notwithstanding the error, there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice is committed to the appellate court. The appellate court's assessment does not turn on its estimate of the verdict that a hypothetical jury, whether 'this jury' or a 'reasonable jury', might have returned had the error not occurred. The concepts of a 'lost chance of acquittal' and its converse the 'inevitability of conviction' do not serve as tests because the appellate court is not predicting the outcome of a hypothetical error-free trial, but is deciding whether, notwithstanding error, guilt was proved to the criminal standard on the admissible evidence at the trial that was had." (Footnotes omitted and emphasis added.)

Proposed orders

1. For the reasons given above, I propose the following orders: 1. Grant leave to appeal. 2. Dismiss the appeal.

Amendments 24 June 2024 - "21" replaced by "almost 12" - [262] DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 24 June 2024