A man who beat a family friend to death under the belief he was a pedophile has attempted to appeal his conviction, raising questions about the reliability of a key witness to the attack.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
In an appeal before the Supreme Court, lawyers for Forbes man Brendan Thomas Doolan, 35, argued the jury who found him guilty of murdering Bradley Dixon in 2021 could not have "reasonably" or "rationally" come to that conclusion.
They argued the eyewitness to the attack was "unreliable" and that Crown prosecutors hadn't ruled out the possibility he also participated in the brutal beating of Mr Dixon.
The appeal, heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in September 2025, came two years after Doolan was found guilty by a jury at the Supreme Court in Forbes on March 13, 2023.
'Brendan has gone apes--t'
The Crown case, which the jury accepted, was that Doolan beat Mr Dixon to death while he was staying at Doolan's mother's house on Johnson Street in Forbes, some time around 3:45am on January 23, 2021.
They argued Doolan's attack on Mr Dixon was motivated by Doolan's belief Mr Dixon was a pedophile and that he didn't want him staying at his mother's house.
On the evening of the murder, Doolan and a friend had been out drinking with a group of friends. On their way back to Doolan's home, they stopped by Doolan's mother's house while she wasn't home.
To lure Mr Dixon outside, Doolan turned off the power. When Mr Dixon came outside, Doolan punched, kicked, kneed and stomped on him at the back of the house and in the driveway next to Mr Dixon's car. Mr Dixon died in the driveway as a result of the brutal attack and Doolan fled from the scene.
Doolan's friend - who witnessed the beating - tried to call a friend for help while it was ongoing. Unable to reach his friend, he spoke to his friend's partner instead.
"Brendan has gone apes-t and is bashing a fellow," she told the court Doolan's friend said to her on the phone.
The man's partner told him about the situation and he drove to the home. He used Doolan's phone to contact emergency services and the two men remained near the house until police and ambulance arrived.
Doolan was arrested at 8:35pm that night and was taken back to Forbes Police Station. After further investigation he was charged with murder.
After being found guilty of the murder, on July 14, 2023, Doolan was sentenced to 18 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 12 years expiring on January 22, 2033 taking into account time served.
Witness's reliability called into question
On appeal, Doolan's legal counsel called into question the credibility of Doolan's friend who was an eye witness to the attack.
Doolan's lawyers argued his friend was unreliable and the jury should not have accepted his version of events, noting he had lied to 000 and to police in his first interview after the attack and on other occasions.
They also argued that the jury could not rule out Doolan's friend also being involved in the attack and dealing the blow that was ultimately deadly.
However, the Crown rejected this.
They said there was no dispute that Doolan's friend had lied about what took place on the morning of January 23, 2021, but that the evidence backed up the account the jury accepted.
The Crown noted that there was evidence Doolan's friend remained at the scene until emergency services arrived, while Doolan ran. They also noted Doolan's friend calling two people for help during the attack.
Doolan's friend's account was also supported by another witness called during the trial.
She lived nearby and told the court she could see one man in the front yard, who she believed was kicking a dog, and another man standing separately near the gutter outside.
Having reviewed the evidence before the jury, president of the Court of Criminal Appeal Julie Ward, ultimately dismissed the appeal.
"Having considered all of the evidence, I am not left with a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused," she said, in her draft findings.
Court of Criminal Appeal justices Andrew Coleman and Belinda Rigg came to the same determination.
"I am not persuaded that the issues raised give rise to a reasonable doubt," justice Rigg said.
"Were I to entertain such a doubt, I would regard the jury's advantage in assessing these witnesses as significant, requiring resolution of this ground against the applicant."
