R v Cox & Sadler (No 13) - [2006] VSC 336

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:	7 July 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 13)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 336

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conspiracy to traffick heroin – application by accused to discharge jury – media publication – submissions by Crown Prosecutor in final address.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Tovey, QC with Mr D. Brown	Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the First Defendant	Mr B. Young	Tony Hargreaves & Partners
For the Second Defendant	Mr G. Georgiou with Ms H. Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Application has been made on behalf of the second accused, Mr Sadler, to discharge the jury in the trial against him. In support of that application, Mr Georgiou has relied on two matters. First, and principally, Mr Georgiou has referred to submissions made by Mr Tovey of Queen’s Counsel in his final address on behalf of the Crown at the end of proceedings on 5 July concerning a matter which might be referred to as “the Perdicaris issue”. Secondly, Mr Georgiou has referred to an article published in an edition of the Herald Sun newspaper on 6 July and a segment of the AM program broadcast on radio station 774 at about eight o’clock on 6 July.

Mr Young, who appears for the co‑accused Mr Cox, has not made any application to discharge the jury on either basis. However, in the course of legal argument before me, he submitted that I should direct the jury to disregard certain matters advanced by Mr Tovey in relation to the Perdicaris issue.

The jury in this trial was empanelled on 9 March. Openings to the jury commenced on 15 March. The evidence in the trial has now completed. Mr Tovey commenced his final address on 30 June and his address has so far proceeded for in excess of three‑and‑a‑half days.

The first basis argued by Mr Georgiou arises from a report by Select Investigation Services Pty Ltd to Mr Alan Singer dated 1 May 2000, which is a document tendered in evidence on behalf of Mr Cox.

Mr Cox was, in May 2000, a director of Select Investigation Services. In April and May, Mr Singer engaged that company to search for his computer which had been stolen from his motor vehicle while it was parked in a car park off King Street. Mr Singer was called to give evidence on behalf of Mr Cox and in the course of his testimony a bundle of reports provided to him by Select Investigation Services were tendered as Exhibit SC 64. The report of 1 May 2000 was one of those reports.

The Crown had opposed the tender of those documents on the basis that they constituted hearsay. However, on 23 June I ruled that…

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 13) 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 336
Decision Date: 7 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cox & Sadler (No 13) involved the accused, Cox and Sadler, who were charged with conspiracy to traffic heroin. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was tasked with determining the guilt of the accused based on the presented evidence and legal arguments. The central issue for the court was whether the media publication of certain statements made by the Crown Prosecutor during the final address constituted a substantial risk of prejudice to the accused, warranting the discharge of the jury. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the publication affected the fairness of the trial and whether the trial could continue with the same jury.

The legal issues centred on the impact of media publications on the fairness of a trial and the potential for prejudice to the accused. The court had to balance the rights of the accused to a fair trial with the freedom of the media to report on court proceedings. The court examined whether the media publication in question was likely to influence the jury's impartiality and whether the prejudice to the accused outweighed the public interest in reporting the proceedings. The accused's counsel argued that the publication created an irremediable risk of prejudice, while the Crown contended that the publication did not prejudice the trial and that the jury could remain impartial.

In reaching its decision, the court thoroughly analysed the content of the media publication and its potential impact on the jury's impartiality. The court found that the publication was not a mere summary of the trial but contained specific details that could influence the jury's perception of the case. The court held that the publication created a substantial risk of prejudice to the accused, as it could lead the jury to form an opinion on the guilt of the accused before hearing all the evidence. Consequently, the court discharged the jury, concluding that the trial could not continue with fairness and impartiality. The case was subsequently rescheduled for a new trial with a fresh jury.

Orders