Teacher’s Pet: In a sentence, Chris Dawson saga not over yet

Former schoolgirl details a litany of alleged abuse, grooming behaviours and ‘sexually perverted activities’ from when she was a 16-year-old student and Chris Dawson her teacher.

Former teacher Chris Dawson, left, with his twin brother Paul, will be sentenced to more years in prison for unlawful carnal knowledge with a pupil.

If it was a television soap opera, it would defy credulity.

Convicted wife killer and former teacher Christopher Michael Dawson, 74, will on Friday be sentenced to more years in prison, having been found guilty of unlawful carnal knowledge with one of his pupils in the early 1980s.

Dawson will appear via audio visual link from prison before Justice Sarah Huggett in Court G1 of the Downing Centre Local and District Court complex in the Sydney CBD for the hearing.

In the past year Dawson, a former Sydney rugby league star, was convicted of murdering his first wife, Lyn, and sentenced to 24 years in jail. Then, three months ago, he was convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge with a schoolgirl, effectively branding him a pedophile.

Now he’s become embroiled in a salacious legal stoush between the NSW government and his former teenage lover – the object of his sexual obsession as a young man that ultimately led to his complete downfall.

For observers of the Dawson saga, the carnal knowledge sentencing promised to be the final chapter. A clutch of years tacked on to his existing term, and then – given he’s not eligible for parole on the murder charge until 2040 – the ultimate epilogue, that being his death in jail.

Now a woman (she cannot be named for legal reasons) is claiming in a civil case that she was groomed and sexually abused by Dawson in the early 1980s at Cromer High in Sydney. The woman is suing the NSW government for breaching its duty of care and is seeking compensation. In turn, the government is countersuing Dawson for breach of his teaching contract during that critical, and clearly sexually charged, period at Cromer.

And already this legal miasma has thrown into the public domain even more allegations of perverted sexual misconduct from Dawson above and beyond what aired in the Supreme and District courts during Dawson’s respective murder and carnal knowledge trials.

The plaintiff’s Statement of Claim before the NSW Supreme Court has outlined in detail a litany of alleged abuse, grooming behaviours and “sexually perverted activities” from when she was a 16-year-old schoolgirl, and Dawson’s student at Cromer, and beyond.

The claim said she became the Dawson family babysitter before Dawson “sexually abused” her later that year.

Cgris Dawson with first wife Lyn, who he was convicted of killing.

The plaintiff said “Dawson wanted her to know a loving relationship before taking her to the bedroom to have sexual intercourse”. She said the incident left her “frightened” and “shaking”.

Later, in the Dawson family home in Bayview on Sydney’s Northern Beaches, she said Dawson “would offer his wife a drink so that she would fall asleep” and he then had sex with her in the guest room, and in the morning when his wife took a shower.

At school, she said Dawson provided her with “love notes” during class, spent time with him in his office with the door either closed or locked, and even partnered her to the school formal. All the while, he “repeatedly harassed” her to marry him.

They eventually did marry in 1984, two years after Lyn disappeared, but the relationship was “controlling and emotionally, verbally and sexually abusive”.

The claim further stated that the plaintiff “was made to dress in her school uniform for the sexual gratification and enjoyment of Dawson”; she was “made to engage in sexual activity with both Dawson and his (identical twin) brother Paul Dawson, at the same time”; and was “encouraged to have sexual intercourse with Paul Dawson whilst Dawson watched in a clandestine manner”.

The Statement of Claim also said the NSW government of the day had breached its duty of care by giving Dawson “unfettered access” to her during school hours, that it had failed to maintain a system of “appropriate relationships between staff and students”, that it did not prevent the plaintiff’s exposure to Dawson’s “grooming activities”, and failed to properly investigate Dawson despite concerns raised by other students about the possibility of an inappropriate relationship between Dawson and his pupil. The government has denied it owes any compensation. The school, it said, upheld the “professional practise” expected of that period.

In its cross-claim against Dawson, the State of NSW sought damages from Dawson for breach of his “employment contract” during the contested period. In short, Dawson’s negligence was to blame. It has sought indemnity from paying any damages that might be awarded to the former schoolgirl, or that Dawson be held financially liable.

And in defence to the counterclaim, Dawson denied that the NSW government was entitled to any indemnity or damages from him. Dawson also denied numerous allegations in the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim.

On Friday, the court will hear evidence from the Crown and the defence on what might constitute a fair sentence. Victim impact statements will be tendered.

Dawson could hardly have imagined that what began as a private, albeit insidious sexual drama firmly behind the curtains of Australian suburbia more than 40 years ago, would now play out interminably on the public stage.

And three words sum up the current state of play – to be continued.