NSW Education’s defence against Chris Dawson’s victim ’disgusting and outdated’, top lawyers say

The NSW Education Department is arguing in a legal suit that the schoolgirl had a ‘share in responsibility’ for being groomed because she didn’t end her relationship with him.

Chris Dawson. Picture: Nikki Short

Lawyers and academics have attacked a defence filed by the NSW Education Department in response to a compensation claim from a schoolgirl groomed by wife-killer Chris Dawson as “disgusting and outdated”.

The defence, sighted by The Weekend Australian, argues the schoolgirl had a “share in responsibility” for being groomed because she did not end her relationship with Dawson, and therefore her damages should be diminished.

It also claims the former student was somewhat at fault for the hurt caused by Dawson’s abuse because she failed to tell her parents about the relationship, did not report it to the police and did not notify the school.

“In further answer to the whole of the allegations pleaded in the Statement of Claim, the (department) says if, and to the extent that, there was any sexual conduct engaged in by or between the (former student) and Dawson, such conduct was consensual”, the defence reads.

The courts recently found Dawson guilty of carnal knowledge, ruling he first had sexual intercourse with the former student in 1980 when she was 16 and his student in an elective subject called sports coaching for year 11.

NSW Education Minister Prue Car this week refused to intervene or speak about the defence, instead passing a request for comment from The Australian directly to the department.

Shine Lawyers abuse lawyer Sheree Buchanan said the defence was “completely ignorant of the power imbalance” between a student and her teacher.

“The element of control in the perpetrator’s position being that of authority would have allowed him to exert such influence over a vulnerable victim, regardless of her age,” Ms Buchanan said.

“In my view, at 16 years of age, there is undoubtedly a vulnerability present, especially when you look at it through the lens of a teacher-student affiliation.

“With these types of cases, the power imbalance, the element of control, and the perpetrator’s position of authority allows them to exert such influence over their vulnerable victims.”

NSW Deputy Premier Prue Car. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Pool/Bianca DeMarchi

The Education Department said it would soon gain access to police records that have become available following the sentencing of Dawson to three years’ imprisonment, after he was found guilty of grooming the girl while she was his student at Cromer High School on Sydney’s northern beaches in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Those three years add to the 24-year sentence he was given after he was found guilty of killing his first wife, Lynnette Simms.

“This material will help inform decision-making regarding the next steps in the civil litigation,” a department spokesman said.

“During this process, the department will maintain a trauma-informed approach in line with the NSW Guiding Principles for Government Agencies Responding to Civil Claims for Child Abuse and the NSW Model Litigant policy.

“As the civil proceedings are ongoing, it would be inappropriate to make further comment”.

The defence also claims the department had no duty of care over the girl except during school hours, on school grounds and while the school curriculum was being performed.

During the trial, the former student told the court that Dawson would buy her chocolates before they engaged in sexual activity in the back seat of his car, in which he would move the baby seat out of the back to make room for them.

She also said she would engage in sexual activity with Dawson in his office at school during recess.

Survivor advocate and #Let-HerSpeak campaign founder Nina Funnell said it was “farcical” for the school to “assume their responsibility ends at the school gates … it shows a complete ignorance to any understanding of how sexual violence and sexual predation works.

“(This defence) is the definition of victim-blaming,” she said. “It is extraordinarily offensive to put the onus of responsibility on to her.”

Swinburne University criminal justice lecturer Rachael Burgin said the defence showed a “total lack of understanding about grooming”.

“Businesses that are happy to push this kind of rhetoric around – a dated rhetoric around sexual violence generally – they just don’t want to pay someone. I think it’s disgusting,” she said.

“This is one of the problems: we’re not seeing that a culture change around sexual violence translates into the civil context.”

Marque Lawyers managing partner Michael Bradley told The Weekend Australian the defence was “outrageous” and had “no prospect of winning”.

“The notion an underage victim of grooming by a serial predator carries any kind of legal culpability for what they have been subjected to is just ridiculous,” he said. “It’s embarrassing anyone thought this an appropriate thing to put in a pleading.”