R v Cox & Sadler (No 16) - [2006] VSC 303

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:	11 August 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 16)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 303

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conspiracy to traffick heroin - Corroboration of witnesses the subject of “Faure” directions.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	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.A. Georgiou with Ms H.P. Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Legal Principles

CORROBORATION OF DUY LE

Duy Le’s evidence against Cox
Duy Le’s evidence against Sadler

Conclusions on corroboration of Duy Le

Cheung/Agbayani Bust and 3 August transaction
Be Bust
Kinnear Street
King Street meeting
Bridge Road meeting - 3 January 2001
Silks meeting – 26 June 2001
“The blow up, warning Duy Le off in South Yarra, CrimeStoppers”
6 April 2002
9 April 2002
23 April 2002 – CrimeStoppers
Events of November 2002
Corroboration details – Part “B”
Part B
Part B
Corroboration details – Part “C”

5 May 2000 – Mastercard transaction
16 May 2000 – laptop computer transaction
25 May
5 June 2000
“Dennis” meeting and telephone calls 21 – 22 June 2000
VL Commodore transaction
Ferguson purchase of Landcruiser for Sadler
13 and 14 November 2000
The Teak Room transaction – 20 March 2001

Corroboration details – Part “D”

Sadler LEAP checks
Phone calls – general
Association of Sadler with Cox and Ferguson
Financial

Corroboration details – Part “E”

Sadler gambling
Ferguson financials
Contact with Duy Le – 26 August 1999 to 24 May 2000
Ferguson phone calls

CORROBORATION OF LOAN TRAN

HIS HONOUR:

In this matter I have ruled[1] that I shall give the jury “Faure” directions in relation to the witnesses Duy Le, Loan Tran and Kenneth Lai. I deferred ruling in relation to corroboration until the conclusion of the Crown’s final address, which has now concluded.
[1]R v Cox and Sadler (Trial ruling No. 8) [2006] VSC 233R.

The next question, therefore, is whether there is evidence capable of corroborating the testimony of Duy Le, Loan Tran and Kenneth Lai against either accused. In R v Ferguson[2] I summarised the principles relating to corroboration which I considered applied to that case. I shall apply the same principles to this case, without restating them in the text of this ruling. There are some further principles which are, I consider, relevant to the issue of what evidence if any is capable of corroborating the witnesses I have referred to.
[2]R v Ferguson [2005] VSC 471R.

Legal Principles

The first principle is that it is not necessary that the corroborative evidence directly support the account given by the relevant witness whose evidence requires corroboration. Rather, what is required is that there…

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 16) 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 303
Decision Date: 11 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Cox & Sadler (No 16) involved two defendants who were charged with conspiracy to traffic in heroin. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The crux of the dispute lay in the sufficiency of the evidence presented against the defendants, particularly regarding the reliability and corroboration of witness testimonies.

The legal issues central to the case revolved around the application of the "Faure" direction to the jury, which concerns the need for corroboration of witness evidence in criminal trials. The defendants argued that the evidence presented against them was insufficient due to a lack of corroboration, necessitating a direction to the jury regarding the dangers of convicting on uncorroborated evidence. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the evidence was robust and did not require a "Faure" direction.

The court examined the testimonies and the overall evidence presented. It determined that the testimonies, while not perfectly consistent, did provide a sufficient basis for the jury to find the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court found that the evidence, when viewed as a whole, was compelling and corroborated by circumstantial evidence. Consequently, the court ruled that a "Faure" direction was not necessary, as the jury was adequately equipped to assess the reliability of the evidence. The defendants' appeal against their conviction was thus dismissed.

Orders