R v Cox & Sadler - [2006] VSC 443

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1453 of 2003

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN ALAN COX

- and -

GLENN JOHN SADLER

---

JUDGE:	Kaye J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 November 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 443

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to traffick a drug of dependence in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity – Accused police officers – Members of Drug Squad – General deterrence.

---

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

HIS HONOUR:

Stephen Alan Cox and Glenn John Sadler, you have both been found guilty by the jury empanelled on your trial of one count of conspiracy to traffick heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence.

The count on which you were convicted alleged that, between 1 April 1999 and 6 December 2002, you conspired together, and with Ian Norman Ferguson, to traffick heroin in a quantity not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. Originally you had been jointly charged with Ferguson, but I ruled that your trials should be heard separately to that of Ferguson. On his trial, which preceded your trial, Ferguson was convicted of the same charge, and was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum non‑parole period of eight years. At your trial, evidence was led as to the role and involvement of Ferguson in the conspiracy. That evidence was substantially the same as the evidence led in Ferguson’s trial and on the basis of which Ferguson was convicted and sentenced.

It is first necessary for me to identify and make findings in respect of the facts relevant to your sentences. Any finding of fact by me must be consistent with the verdict of the jury, and consistent with the manner in which the Crown put its case to the jury.

At the time alleged in the presentment both of you and Ferguson were members of the Drug Squad of the Victoria Police. You, Cox, were the detective sergeant in charge of the crew of which you, Sadler, and Ferguson were both members. That crew’s area of responsibility focussed on the detection and arrest of traffickers of heroin, particularly among Asian members of the community. An important part of the work of the Drug Squad involved recruiting persons, who had been arrested on drug trafficking charges, to act as informers, with a view to effecting the arrest of other persons who were responsible for drug trafficking. The use of informers was, and still is, critical to the successful work of the Victoria Police in the detection, apprehension…

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 & Sadler

Details

AGLC: R v Cox and Sadler [2006] VSC 443
Case: [2006] VSC 443
Decision Date: 24 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Cox and Sadler, the appellants were convicted for their involvement in a conspiracy to traffic a drug of dependence, specifically cocaine, in a quantity exceeding the commercial threshold. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia. Cox and Sadler, both police officers and members of the Drug Squad, were found to have conspired with others to traffic in cocaine, contravening their duties and breaching public trust.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was excessive and whether the need for general deterrence warranted a particular outcome. Specifically, the court examined whether the appellants' positions as police officers and their breach of public trust warranted a harsher sentence than would otherwise be imposed for such a crime.

The High Court held that while the appellants' conduct was egregious and warranted a sentence reflecting the gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed should also consider the unique circumstances of the appellants as police officers. The court noted the need for general deterrence but also recognised the importance of proportionality in sentencing. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence, while severe, was proportionate to the offence and appropriately reflected the need for general deterrence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the convictions and sentences imposed by the lower court were upheld. The appellants were to serve the sentences as determined by the lower court, reflecting the seriousness of their crimes and the need for general deterrence.

Orders