R v Cox (No 5) - [2005] VSC 262

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1453 of 2003

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
STEPHEN COX, GLENN SADLER, IAN FERGUSON AND JOANNE FERGUSON	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 July 2005
DATE OF RULING:	27 July 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and ors (Ruling No. 5)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 262

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Separate trials – Order in which trials to take place.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J. Leckie, S.C. with Mr D. Brown	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant Cox	Mr B. Young	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Defendant Sadler	Mr G.A. Georgiou with Ms H. Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Defendant Ian Ferguson	Mr D. O’Doherty with Ms A. Marjanovic	C. Marshall & Associates
For the Defendant Joanne Ferguson	Ms M. Tittensor	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

On 21 July 2005 I ruled[1] that the charge of conspiracy in Count 1 of the presentment be tried jointly against the first and second accused, Stephen Cox and Glenn Sadler, but separately to the charge of conspiracy in Count 1 against the third accused, Ian Ferguson. I also ruled that the three counts of theft – Counts 5,6 and 7 – be tried separately from Count 1, and from each other.
[1]R v Cox and ors (Ruling No. 4) [2005] VSC 255R.

The Crown wishes to proceed first with the trial of the charges of conspiracy in Count 1, before proceeding with the charges of theft in Counts 5, 6 and 7. That course is not opposed by any of the other parties, and would seem to me to be the appropriate course by which to proceed in these trials.

Pursuant to my earlier ruling, the charge of conspiracy against Cox and Sadler in Count 1 will be tried at the same time as the money laundering charges against Cox and Sadler in Counts 2 and 4 of the presentment. Similarly, the charge of conspiracy against Ian Ferguson in Count 1 will be tried at the same time as the money laundering charge in Count 3 against Ian Ferguson and the fourth accused, Joanne Ferguson.

The issue which now arises concerns the order in which the trials of the conspiracy and money laundering charges are to proceed. The Crown proposes that the trial of the charge against Ian Ferguson in Count 1, and of the charges against Ian Ferguson and Joanne Ferguson in Count 3, proceed first, and before the trial of the charges against Cox and Sadler in Counts 1, 2 and 4. That proposal is supported by both Cox and Sadler. However, it is opposed by Ian Ferguson and Joanne Ferguson.

Mr Young, who appears on behalf of Cox, submitted that the course proposed by the Crown is appropriate. His principal submission was that, if the case against Ian Ferguson in Count 1 proceeded first, and if Ferguson were acquitted…

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.

Continue reading R v Cox (No 5)

Details

AGLC: R v Cox (No 5) [2005] VSC 262
Case: [2005] VSC 262
Decision Date: 27 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In R v Cox (No 5), the accused faced charges in the Supreme Court of Victoria, with the proceedings centering on the order in which the trials for separate criminal charges should occur. The court was asked to determine whether the accused should be tried for one set of charges before another, or if the trials could be conducted concurrently. The decision was pivotal as it could influence the efficiency of the judicial process and the fairness of the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the principle of separate trials for different charges necessitated a specific order, or if the court had discretion to manage the scheduling of these trials. The court considered whether the requirement to conduct separate trials was a rigid rule or if it allowed for flexibility in the interests of justice. This involved assessing the potential impact on the accused's right to a fair trial and the public interest in expediting the resolution of criminal matters.

The court determined that while the principle of separate trials for different charges is generally upheld, the order in which these trials are conducted is not strictly prescribed. The Supreme Court of Victoria found that it had the discretion to manage the scheduling of separate trials to ensure a fair and efficient judicial process. The court reasoned that the interests of justice could be best served by allowing flexibility in the timing of the trials, provided that the accused's rights were not prejudiced. The decision was made in favour of the accused, affirming the court's discretion in determining the order of separate trials.

The court's final order recognised the importance of separate trials while also emphasising the need for judicial discretion in their scheduling. The court clarified that the order of separate trials should be determined based on the specific circumstances of each case, with the aim of achieving fairness and efficiency in the judicial process.

Orders