R v Cox & Sadler (No 4) - [2006] VSC 60

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:	23 February 2006
DATE OF RULING:	28 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 4)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 60

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conspiracy to traffick heroin – Particulars of conspiracy – Obligation of Crown to prove conspiracy charged – Relevance of particulars.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	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

HIS HONOUR:

The trial in this matter is now due to commence on 8 March. The accused have submitted that I should rule that, on the Crown case as currently particularised, the jury could only convict either accused if it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the evidence of Kenneth Lai as to the corrupt approach made to him by the accused in the earlier part of 1999.

In the course of submissions I expressed a strong reluctance to make such a ruling, at least until I head heard the opening the Crown to the jury. The substance and nature of the charge may well be affected, and take shape, according to the manner in which the case is opened to the jury. Any ruling given by me at this stage would be based solely on the statement of the charge contained in the presentment and in the particulars provided by the Crown. The argument before me proceeded along similar lines to a “pleading summons” in a civil suit. Any ruling which I might give at this stage would be restricted to a ruling based solely on the definition of the charge against the accused contained in the count in the presentment and in the particulars.

However, and notwithstanding that reluctance, I have decided to deliver the ruling at this stage. All the parties have pressed upon me that it is desirable that I do so. The forthcoming trial will be quite lengthy. It would be of assistance to the parties to know, at this stage, the construction which I place on the charge and the particulars, and in particular to know whether, based on that construction, it is necessary that the allegations made by Lai be proven beyond reasonable doubt in order to sustain that charge. I have presided at the trial of the alleged co‑conspirator Ferguson and am quite familiar with the issues which are to be tried. Accordingly, albeit with some reluctance, I accede to the request of the parties to make my ruling at this stage. It must be understood that the ruling is based upon the formulation of the charge in the presentment and in the particulars. In addition, I have reference to the statements…

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 4) 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 60
Decision Date: 28 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Cox & Sadler (No 4), the respondents, Cox and Sadler, were convicted of conspiracy to traffic in heroin. The Crown appealed the decision, contending that the conviction should be quashed due to insufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy charged. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was the extent to which the Crown must prove the particulars of a conspiracy in a criminal charge, specifically whether the evidence needed to align exactly with the particulars outlined in the indictment.

The court deliberated on the requirement for the Crown to prove the conspiracy as alleged, examining whether the prosecution needed to strictly adhere to the particulars of the conspiracy charged in the indictment. The court considered the principle that a conviction must be based on evidence that sufficiently aligns with the particulars of the offence as charged. The court acknowledged that while the Crown must prove the elements of the conspiracy as alleged, there is some flexibility in the evidence presented, particularly where the variances do not alter the fundamental nature of the offence.

The High Court found that the particulars of the conspiracy charged did not need to be strictly adhered to, as long as the evidence sufficiently proved the essential elements of the offence. The court held that the conviction could stand if the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondents conspired to traffic in heroin, regardless of minor discrepancies in the particulars. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the convictions were upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal and the affirmation of the convictions.

Orders