The details of the incident in June 2023 have come to light in a High Court review of the disciplinary measures taken against him, which found he had been subject to a breach of justice.
Dawson has since been released from prison but remains under an extended supervision order, a measure that allows probation officers to continue monitoring “high-risk” offenders.
He persisted with the High Court action because he felt strongly about the “vindication of his rights” and he felt the misconduct charges might count against him in the future.
Sexual offending dates back to 2005
Dawson’s history of sexual offending dates back to August 2005. In that month, aged 24, he had a sexual connection with an intoxicated 13-year-old girl.
In 2011, he was found guilty of raping two 16-year-old girls two days apart in August 2009.
A psychological report in 2023 said Dawson still maintained all three of his sexual offences involved consent from the girls.
He expressed no remorse for his offending and the psychologist assessed that Dawson remained at “high risk” of committing a further sexual offence while in the community.
Dawson was initially released from his 14-year jail sentence in November 2022 but was recalled to prison four months later.
The incident with the razor blade occurred between his recall and his eventual sentence end date on June 29, 2024.
It happened after Corrections officers told him he was being transferred between the Nikau Unit and the Puriri Unit at Waikeria Prison, near Te Awamutu.
The shift was thought necessary after allegations were raised Dawson had been bullying other inmates in the voluntary segregation unit where they all lived.
When he was taken to his cell to pack up his things, he showed officers the blade in his mouth and threatened to swallow it if taken to the Puriri Unit.
He demanded instead to be taken to the At-Risk Unit (ARU) at Spring Hill Correctional Facility, about 100km away.
Instead, Corrections officers handcuffed Dawson and took him to a prison visitor area where he could be monitored.
Dawson allegedly asked for the names of the inmates who had “narked” on him so he could deal with them later.
He said if officers had not been with him when he packed up his cell, he would have gone into the unit and “smacked over the narks”.
The negotiator and senior officer were with Dawson in the visitor area from about 11.38am to 4.35pm trying to get him to hand over the blade.
At 3.30pm, Dawson was given the formal order to do so. It was then that he said he had swallowed it.
Health staff were brought in and determined Dawson had swallowed the blade.
They arranged for him to be taken to Waikato Hospital for an X-ray and from there to Spring Hill, where he was kept in a “dry cell” without running water or a flush toilet for 11 days.
High Court Justice James MacGillivray, who later conducted a judicial review of the disciplinary process against Dawson in prison, said the evidence was “far from consistent” about when he swallowed the blade.
He said it was possible Dawson still had the blade in his mouth when given the order.
Charged with misconduct
Dawson was charged with two counts of misconduct after the incident.
One was for threatening behaviour, in saying he would have “smacked over” the other inmates. The second was for not following a lawful order when he refused to surrender the blade.
He subsequently applied to the High Court for a judicial review of the Department of Corrections’ decision to charge him and the actions of a Visiting Justice in finding the charges proven and declining him legal representation.
In making representations on the decision to not allow him legal counsel, Dawson revealed he had swallowed a razor blade on a previous occasion.
“For all my years in jail I’ve never heard of being … charged for swallowing a razor blade,” Dawson said.
“I swallowed it in Spring Hill Prison before and I never got charged for that, therefore, I’m asking under legal terms why I’m being charged.”
Justice MacGillivray reviewed the disciplinary process and found in Dawson’s favour regarding the Visiting Justice’s decision not to allow him legal representation.
His lawyer had been in touch with Corrections before the disciplinary proceedings but only learned after the fact that it had taken place.
Under the Corrections Act, an inmate is not automatically entitled to legal representation at a prison disciplinary hearing.
However, in Dawson’s case, Justice MacGillivray said the decision not to allow representation was “made in an unlawful and unfair manner”.
To address this, the judge made a declaration that the findings against Dawson in the disciplinary process were “unlawful and in breach of natural justice”.
Ric Stevens spent many years working for the former New Zealand Press Association news agency, including as a political reporter at Parliament, before holding senior positions at various daily newspapers. He joined NZME’s Open Justice team in 2022 and is based in Hawke’s Bay. His writing in the crime and justice sphere is informed by four years of frontline experience as a probation officer.
