R v Cox & Sadler (No 1) - [2006] VSC 44

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 HEARING:	15 February 2006
DATE OF RULING:	20 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 1)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 44

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conspiracy to traffick heroin – Admissibility of evidence – Whether one or more conspiracies alleged.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tovey Q.C. with Mr D. Brown	Solicitor for 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

HIS HONOUR:

The accused, Stephen Cox and Glenn Sadler, are jointly charged with conspiring, together with Ian Ferguson and others, between 1 April 1999 and 6 December 2002, to traffick heroin in a quantity which was not less than the commercial quantity applicable to that drug of dependence. A jury is due to be empanelled in this matter on 6 March 2006. A number of preliminary matters have been raised for my determination. The first matter concerns the admissibility of the evidence of Kenneth Lai.

Originally, Cox and Sadler were jointly presented with Ferguson on a charge of conspiring to traffick heroin in an amount not less than a commercial quantity between 1 April 1999 and 6 December 2002. Each accused was also charged, separately, with counts alleging money laundering contrary to s.122 of the Confiscation Act 1997. On 21 July 2004 I ruled[1] that the charge of conspiracy be tried jointly against Cox and Sadler, but separately to the charge of conspiracy against Ian Ferguson. The trial of Ferguson proceeded on that count, and on the count of money laundering, together with the trial of Joanne Ferguson on one count of money laundering. On 4 January 2006 the jury empanelled in that trial announced its verdict that Ferguson was guilty of both charges. On 5 January 2006 the same jury announced its verdict finding Joanne Ferguson not guilty of the count of money laundering.
[1]R v Cox and ors (Ruling No. 4) [2005] VSC 255R.

The question of the admissibility of Lai’s evidence had been agitated by Cox, Sadler and Ferguson before I ordered that the trials of Cox and Sadler proceed separately to the trial of Ferguson. By the same ruling dated 21 July 2005 I rejected the submission by each accused that Lai’s evidence be excluded. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 30 to 45 of that ruling, I concluded that the evidence of Duy Le and Kenneth Lai,as contained in the depositions, was capable of supporting the existence of the one conspiracy charged in Count 1 of the then presentment. I therefore held that the evidence of Kenneth Lai was relevant and admissible to the charge of conspiracy brought against each accused.

Counsel for Cox and Sadler have…

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 & Sadler (No 1) 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 44
Decision Date: 20 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved two defendants, Cox and Sadler, who were charged with conspiracy to traffic heroin. The proceedings took place in a criminal court, where the defendants contested the charges against them. The primary dispute centred around the admissibility of evidence collected during police investigations and whether the evidence pertained to one overarching conspiracy or multiple conspiracies.

The court had to determine whether the evidence was admissible in relation to the charges laid against the defendants. A key issue was whether the evidence pertained to a single conspiracy or multiple conspiracies. This distinction was crucial as it would affect the scope of the charges and the admissibility of the evidence. Additionally, the court needed to establish whether the evidence was relevant and whether it had been obtained lawfully.

In addressing these issues, the court examined the evidence in detail and considered the arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. The court found that the evidence related to a single overarching conspiracy involving the defendants. It was determined that the evidence was admissible as it was relevant and had been obtained lawfully. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the conspiracy charges against both Cox and Sadler. Consequently, the defendants' motion to exclude the evidence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the evidence in question would be admitted, and the defendants' motion to exclude it was denied. The court proceeded to hear the substantive charges against Cox and Sadler, which were related to their involvement in the conspiracy to traffic heroin.

Orders