Chris Dawson guilty result a victory for media and justice: the system worked

Chris Merritt 30 August 2022

Published in the Australian Newspaper

The Dawson verdict is a clear victory for two institutions that sometimes view each other with suspicion: the media and the criminal justice system of NSW. This case has shown that the law provides plenty of room for reporters like Hedley Thomas to expose wrongdoing without interfering with the duty of the courts to provide a fair trial for those accused of wrongdoing. The system worked.

There can be little doubt this conviction would not have happened without the Teacher’s Pet podcast, presented and co-produced by Thomas, who breathed life into a cold case.

The law of sub-judice contempt imposes severe penalties on journalists who interfere with the justice system by prejudging matters that are pending or before the courts, but when Thomas produced his podcasts, there were no charges pending against anyone. He was entitled to interview anyone and draw on information on the public record from two coronial inquests into Lyn’s death.

The real risk was the prospect of defamation proceedings by Chris Dawson, who had effectively been accused of murder in podcasts that had been heard by millions of people in this country and around the world.

Dawson, no doubt aware of his guilt, remained silent.

The ground rules changed once police arrested Dawson, brought him to Sydney and charged him with the murder of his first wife.

At that point, the law of sub-judice contempt became a live issue and required Thomas to back away from the story and allow the justice system to do its work.

Every podcast was taken down in order to avoid causing bias among potential jurors and infringing Dawson’s right to a fair trial.

The global smash hit podcast that started it all, revealed what we knew all along, that Chris Dawson is guilty.

The judiciary might not like it but Thomas was an essential element in Tuesday’s verdict.

This was recognised by the family of Lyn Dawson who praised Thomas and the rest of the media for keeping this case in the public eye.

Thomas did this not by defying the law but by understanding and complying with a body of law that strikes a balance between free speech and a fair trial.

Once Dawson was charged the onus moved to the Supreme Court, which ordered a temporary stay on proceedings and eventually granted Dawson a judge-alone trial to eliminate a biased jury.

Two years ago, an interlocutory judgment accused Thomas of journalistic hubris. In light of Tuesday’s verdict, that needs to be reassessed. Thomas was right all along.

For Further Education Resources about the Dawson Trial and the role of Media in achieving justice go to https://www.ruleoflaw.org.au/chris-dawson-trial-and-role-of-media/