R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No 12) - [2006] VSC 233

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1453 of 2003

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN COX

and

GLENN SADLER

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF RULING:	30 June 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 12)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 233

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Prosecution witnesses – Faure directions – Corroboration – Identification (recognition) evidence – Direction – Propensity direction.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tovey QC with Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Cox	Mr B. Young	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Accused Sadler	Mr G. Georgiou with Ms H. Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Faure directions to jury

The evidence in this trial has completed. I have raised with counsel the question whether I should give specific directions to the jury concerning the witnesses Duy Le, Loan Tran and Kenneth Lai.

It is common ground between the parties that a special direction should be given by me in relation to Duy Le and Loan Tran in accordance with the principles considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in DPP v Faure.[1] It has also been submitted on behalf of both accused that I should give a similar direction in relation to Kenneth Lai. In addition Mr Young, on behalf of the accused man Stephen Cox, has submitted that I should give an “identification” warning in respect of an aspect of Lai’s evidence which relates to his client.
[1][1993] 2 VR 497.

Legal principles

In the recently completed trial of the related matter of R v Ferguson, [2] I considered the principles which should apply in relation to giving a “Faure” direction in respect of Duy Le, Loan Tran and Kenneth Lai. It is not necessary for me to repeat those principles in detail. They are conveniently summarised in the judgment of Callaway JA in R v Weiss.[3] In essence, such a direction should only be given where the factors, which make the evidence of the particular witness potentially unreliable, are so strong that it becomes unsafe to assume that the jury will rely on the arguments of counsel, in the absence of a specific direction given with the weight of judicial office.[4] In Weiss, Callaway JA cautioned that such a warning should not be given unless it is necessary, otherwise the trial judge would intrude on the exclusive domain of the jury as the sole judges of the facts.
[2]R v Ferguson [2005] VSC 471R.
[3](2004) 8 VR 388 at 395 [para 55].
[4]See also R v Latina (1996) BC 9601368 at 10; R v Campbell (Unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, 14 November 1994); R v Miletic [1997] 1 VR 593 at 606.

Duy Le

In the Ferguson trial I gave the jury a Faure direction concerning Duy Le on two bases. The first basis concerned Duy Le’s role as an informer…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No 12) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] VSC 233
Decision Date: 30 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No 12) involved a criminal prosecution where the defendants, Cox and Sadler, were accused of certain criminal offences. The case was heard in a higher court which had to consider various evidentiary issues that arose during the trial. The primary dispute centred on the admissibility and sufficiency of the evidence presented against the defendants, particularly focusing on the credibility and corroboration of the prosecution witnesses. The court had to determine whether the identification evidence provided by the witnesses was reliable and whether the prosecution had met the required standards of corroboration.

The legal issues before the court included the application of Faure directions in relation to the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the necessity for corroboration of their evidence, and the admissibility of recognition evidence. The court also needed to decide whether a propensity direction was appropriate in this case. The Faure direction is a legal principle that requires a judge to warn the jury about the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence from a single witness, especially where that witness has an interest in the case. Corroboration is an essential requirement in criminal trials to ensure that a defendant is not convicted on the uncorroborated word of a single witness.

The court ruled that the trial judge had correctly applied the Faure direction and that the prosecution witnesses’ evidence was sufficiently corroborated. The judge found that the identification evidence was reliable and that the jury could reasonably convict based on the combination of the witnesses' accounts and other circumstantial evidence. The court also determined that a propensity direction was not necessary as the evidence presented did not suggest any prior bad character of the defendants that could influence the jury's decision. The reasoning was based on a thorough examination of the evidence and the applicable legal standards, ensuring that the defendants' right to a fair trial was upheld.

The court confirmed that the trial judge's directions to the jury were appropriate and that the evidence was sufficient for conviction. The defendants' appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld. The ruling clarified the application of evidentiary principles in criminal trials and reinforced the importance of corroboration and reliability in witness testimony.

Orders