Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Dawson [2022] NSWSC 758 Hearing dates: 15 June 2022 Date of orders: 15 June 2022 Decision date: 15 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal Before: Harrison J Decision: The question asked of Mr Silkman is admissible. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – murder trial – where question objected to based on relevance – question allowed Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Regina (Crown) Christopher Michael Dawson (Accused) Representation: Counsel: C M Everson SC and E Blizard (Crown) P David (Accused) Solicitors: Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Greg Walsh & Co Solicitors (Accused) File Number(s): 2018/372527 Publication restriction: Nil EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. HIS HONOUR: Robert Silkman is in the course of giving evidence. A statement by him dated 9 November 2018 has, on my understanding, previously been supplied in the normal course to the legal representatives of the accused in these proceedings. Paragraph 5 of Mr Silkman's statement reads as follows: 2. "When I was younger I was a bit of a scallywag. I used to hang around with a number of criminal identities, including Neddy Smith. His brother-in-law, Paul Hayward, played for Newtown as well. I wasn't close mates with these guys, but I could have a beer with them if I saw them in a pub or when I was out." 3. Mr Silkman has been asked, presumably in accordance with the material contained in that paragraph, whether he knew who Paul Hayward's brother-in-law was. That question is objected to upon the basis that it cannot be relevant to any issue in the proceedings. 4. It is anticipated that Mr Silkman will give evidence of a conversation with Mr Chris Dawson on a plane returning from an end of season trip in which he approached Mr Silkman and asked him whether he knew anyone who could kill his wife. The Crown case alleges that Mr Dawson approached Mr Silkman to ask that question because he was aware of Mr Silkman's criminal connections to the effect of the material revealed in paragraph 5 of Mr Silkman's statement. 5. I will assume that both the fact and the terms of any alleged conversation between Mr Dawson and Mr Silkman are in issue. The Crown concedes that it is unable to establish by direct evidence that Mr Chris Dawson was aware that Mr Silkman had or may have had criminal connections of any sort. The Crown will in due course, however, seek to contend that such a knowledge arises by inference from the fact that Mr Silkman notoriously associated with criminal identities. Whether that fact, if proved, gives rise to the inference contended for remains to be seen. 6. Ms David, for Mr Chris Dawson, submits that the question is wholly irrelevant to any fact in issue and is therefore inadmissible before its possible relevance has been established. It seems to me, however, that the preferable and logical approach is to say that it will be irrelevant unless and until the Crown can establish the inference contended for by other evidence that might be led in the proceedings. Part of that evidence potentially includes the answer to the question and possibly also further answers from Mr Silkman in or to the same effect. 7. While I accept that at the present time the direct relevance of the question may not have been established, the prospect that the Crown will in due course be able to establish that it has some relevance is not far-fetched, remote or fanciful. In those circumstances, I consider that the question is admissible. ********** 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: 09 September 2022