R v Cox & Sadler (No 8) - [2006] VSC 333

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:	29 May 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cox and Sadler (Ruling No. 8)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 333

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Evidence – Hearsay – Prior consistent statements – recognised exceptions – exercise of judge’s discretion.

---

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:

The two accused are charged with conspiring together and with Ian Ferguson to traffic heroin in an amount not less than the commercial quantity. The accused and Ferguson were, for varying parts of the period charged in the presentment, members of the Drug Squad of the Victorian Police Force. The charges arise from investigations into the Drug Squad by the Ceja Task Force, which is a part of the Ethical Standards Department of the Victoria Police.

The key witness in the trial has been Duy Le. In his evidence Duy Le alleged that each of the accused and Ferguson trafficked substantial quantities of heroin to him from about late 1999 until early 2002. Duy Le’s then girlfriend, Loan Tran, has also given evidence. Both witnesses were initially interviewed by Ceja investigators in December 2002 and subsequently in mid‑2003. The charges against the accused arose from the allegations made by Duy Le and Loan Tran in those interviews.

The next witnesses are Senior Sergeant Ross and Detective Sergeant O’Neill, the investigators attached to the Ceja Task Force, who interviewed Duy Le and Loan Tran in December 2002 and subsequently. The Crown wishes to lead evidence from Ross and O’Neill as to the matters canvassed by them in their interviews with Duy Le and Loan Tran in December 2002. Those matters are set out in a folder entitled “summaries of debriefs”. The accused each oppose that course and have submitted that the Crown ought not be permitted to lead that evidence in the trial.

Initially the Crown wished to call quite extensive evidence as to the interviews with each of the two witnesses; however, the focus and ambit of the evidence which the Crown proposes to call has narrowed somewhat. Essentially, the Crown now wishes to rebut the allegation that before Loan Tran was interviewed by Ceja on 10 December 2002, she and Duy Le colluded as to what she would tell the police. The Crown wishes to lead evidence from Mr Ross and Mr O’Neill in a summary form as to the topics addressed by Loan Tran in her interview and in a summary form as to the topics addressed by Duy Le in his interviews in December 2002. By that process the Crown will seek to…

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 8) 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 333
Decision Date: 29 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cox & Sadler (No 8) involved the defendants, Cox and Sadler, who were charged with criminal offences. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence, specifically prior consistent statements made by the defendants, which were sought to be admitted as exceptions to the hearsay rule. The matter was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the prior consistent statements as evidence under the recognised exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court was required to assess whether the statements met the criteria for admissibility, including considerations such as the reliability, relevance, and necessity of the evidence in the context of the case. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the probative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have on the defendants.

The High Court found that the judge had correctly exercised their discretion in admitting the prior consistent statements as evidence. The court held that the statements met the criteria for admissibility under the recognised exceptions to the hearsay rule. The court found that the statements were reliable, relevant, and necessary for the proper determination of the case. Additionally, the court concluded that the probative value of the evidence substantially outweighed any prejudicial effect it might have had on the defendants. Therefore, the admission of the prior consistent statements was deemed appropriate and did not constitute an error of law.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the determination of the legal issue concerning the admissibility of the prior consistent statements. The decision in this case provides guidance to courts in exercising their discretion in admitting such evidence under the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Orders