Hedley Thomas with Epilogue by Matthew Condon

Pan Macmillan 2023

RRP $34.99

On 30 August 2022 Christopher Michael Dawson was convicted by NSW Supreme Court Justice Ian Harrison of the murder of his (Dawson’s) wife Lynette (Lyn) Dawson on or about 8 or 9 January 1982. Lyn Dawson, who was the mother of two young children, had suddenly and without warning disappeared from their Bayview home never to be seen again. No body was ever found and no cause of death was ever identified.

Back in 2001 Thomas, a Brisbane base journalist with The Australian, had written some lengthy articles about the strange circumstances of Lyn Dawson’s disappearance, which was for some time treated by the police as a missing person case. In the years since she vanished there had been a number of suggestions that Lyn Dawson had been murdered by her husband, and in 2017 Thomas decided that he would host a podcast examining the circumstances of the case.

Hedley Thomas started his career as a copyboy with the Gold Coast Bulletin, working his way up to become The Australian’s national chief correspondent and investigative journalist. He has won eight Walkley Awards, including two Gold Walkleys. In 2022 he received the Graham Perkin Australian Journalist of the Year Award.

The book cover says this:

‘Hedley Thomas takes you behind the scenes with a blow-by-blow account of one of the most intriguing and enduring murder mysteries of our time – the crime, the podcast investigation, the sexual exploitation of teenage students, the courtroom drama – and how justice was finally delivered.’

Dawson and his identical twin brother Paul had both played first grade rugby league for the Newtown Jets before both becoming school teachers on Sydney’s northern beaches, and buying houses in the same Bayview street. Dawson had met Lyn when they were at school and outwardly, they had a happy marriage, but things went off the rails when Dawson brought a 16-year-old female student Jenny Carlson (a pseudonym) to stay in their home as a ‘babysitter.’ The reality was that Jenny and Dawson were having a sexual relationship which caused Lyn significant distress.

Dawson reported Lyn as a missing person, telling police that when she failed to arrive to join him at Northbridge Baths she had phoned him to say that she needed some time away. At the time the police were content to accept his word and oddly, so did many others, including members of Lyn’s own family.

As time went on many people became suspicious that Dawson’s version of events was not true. One factor creating suspicion was that within two days of her ‘disappearance’ Dawson brought Jenny back to the home where they then shared the matrimonial bed. Others questioned whether it would be likely that a loving mother would up and leave her two daughters whom she loved dearly.

Thomas explains why in 2017 he decided to host a podcast, also called The Teacher’s Pet, and how he went about the task. We learn that Thomas felt a sense of injustice in relation to Lyn Dawson and the unwillingness of the then NSW Director or Prosecutions (DPP), Nicholas Cowdery, to prosecute Dawson despite the fact that two Coroners, in 2001 and 2003 had recommended prosecution. Thomas makes much of the fact that the DPP failed to follow the two Coroners’ recommendations, but it must be noted that the DPP is the independent person charged with rigorously evaluating the admissible evidence before deciding whether the prosecute. The DPP must resist outside pressures when making such decisions. The lawyers at the Office of the DPP would generally be more experienced in running major criminal trials that would the average coroner. Thomas was, in my opinion, unfairly critical of the role of the DPP, at one stage disrespectfully referring to DPP Nick Cowdery as a ‘knucklehead’. The book does not explicitly say so, but readers will be left in little doubt that Thomas is of the view that his podcast was a catalyst for the DPP’s ultimate decision to prosecute Dawson and get him convicted.

The recent case of Kathleen Folbigg should remind everyone, journalists included, of the potential disastrous consequences of a flawed prosecution and wrongful conviction.

In telling the story of the podcast we read of all the sordid details of duplicity, dishonesty, unfaithfulness and the sexual exploitation of young school girls ending with the Dawson’s trial, conviction and sentencing.

Preparing for the podcast required Thomas to interview many witnesses, although understandably, and no doubt on legal advice, Dawson himself declined to take part. The podcast developed a life of its own and as each episode unfolded more witnesses came forward.

The book is well written in clear journalistic style, but as I read, I began to doubt that the book would have been written if Dawson had been acquitted. The podcast was occurring at the same time that there was an ongoing police investigation and there was significant criticism, particularly in legal circles, of Thomas’s activities. After Dawson was arrested and charged, his own legal team argued that the podcast and other publicity meant that it would be impossible for Dawson to get a fair trial. Using this argument Dawson applied to the Supreme Court for something called a permanent stay which, if allowed, would have meant that the prosecution could not proceed. Although the stay was not ultimately granted the Judge levelled significant criticism in the direction of Thomas and the podcast saying:

‘….the risk that an overzealous investigative journalist poses to a fair trial of a person who might ultimately be charged with an historic murder…is self evident.’

And:

‘…the unrestrained and uncensored public commentary about the applicant’s guilt is the most egregious example of media interference with a criminal trial process which this court has had to consider in deciding whether to take the extraordinary step of permanently staying a criminal prosecution’.

One week before the trial commenced the Supreme Court granted Dawson a trial without a jury on the basis of all the pre-trial publicity of the case, the judge referring particularly to the podcast.

As part of his reasons for finding Dawson guilty Justice Ian Harrison suggested that the podcast had ‘figured as a significant factor to be taken into account…’

The podcast began with Dawson’s sexual exploits which were clearly designed to damn him from the very start, and the regular expressions of opinion that he was guilty, and potential witnesses hearing what other likely witnesses had to say, created huge risk that there could not be a fair trial. It seems however that Thomas does not accept such criticisms. One report by Zoe Samios in the Sydney Morning Herald had this to say:

‘Thomas says journalists should not be intimidated or discouraged from stories when there is a legitimate purpose and “the injustice appears so plain”.

“While we may not win the approval of judges or defence lawyers for going hard, and forensically examining these sorts of cases, we should not be deterred from it,” Thomas says. “We are rarely going to be on the same page, and we should fight to ensure that we double down and do more investigations into the cold cases.”

“This notion that some judges have that journalists should not be going and interviewing witnesses because they might one day be witnesses in a formal murder proceeding … is quite illogical,” he says. “There is no guarantee that any of these cold cases will ever go to trial in the absence of journalistic scrutiny.”’

I couldn’t help wondering what Thomas might have had to say if Dawson had not been sent to trial, or if he had been acquitted because of his podcast. From what I have read he would have simply blamed a stuffy, out-of-touch legal profession and judiciary.

None of my comments should be taken as any approval of the appalling criminal behaviour of Dawson who is now a convicted murderer. From the evidence at the trial, he was a narcissistic, self-absorbed, manipulative, selfish and lying bully who deserves to be in prison.  What I am suggesting is that the podcast and the surrounding publicity might well have enabled him to avoid his well-deserved prison sentence.

I note that Dawson has lodged an appeal against his conviction so this story might still have some distance to run.

The book is worth reading but I suggest that it be read with a critical eye.

John Watts

(Retired barrister)