NSW Police officer Alex Cox denies taking and distributing intimate video of woman

A NSW Police officer was talking up his “prowess in the sheets” when he claimed he was in two pornography videos he showed his work colleagues, a court has heard.

Alexander James Cox, 29, took the stand on the second day of a hearing in Sutherland Local Court. Picture: Ashleigh Tullis

A NSW Police officer was talking up his “prowess in the sheets” when he claimed he was in two pornography videos he showed his work colleagues, a court has heard.

Alexander James Cox, 29, has pleaded not guilty to intentionally recording an intimate image without consent and two counts of intentionally distributing the image without consent.

Cox – who works as a constable at St George Police Station in Kogarah but has been suspended with pay – defended the allegations on the second day of a hearing in Sutherland Local Court on Wednesday.

The Crown alleged Cox intentionally recorded himself having sexual intercourse with a woman without her knowledge and that she did not consent to the recording being made.

It was further alleged Cox showed the recording or a photo to three NSW Police officers.

Alexander Cox has pleaded not guilty to intentionally recording an intimate image without consent and two counts of intentionally distributing the image without consent. Picture: Ashleigh Tullis

On Tuesday, the complainant told the court she was in a sexual relationship with Cox and recalled on one occasion having sex at Cox’s Engadine apartment where she brought a “collar and leash”.

The court previously heard from two of the officers, Constable Zachary Barrett and Detective Sam Kirk, who were shown the video but did not see a distinctive tattoo on the woman in the footage, which the complainant has on her body.

Cox took the stand on Wednesday where he admitted he showed an unrelated short pornography video during a work bonding trip in 2019.

“I just joked around and said it was myself,” he said before claiming it was a “bit of shenanigans” and “everyone was laughing and drinking”.

Cox claimed he and the woman never used a collar and leash during their sexual intercourse but they may have used silk ties from a 50 Shades of Grey collection.

Cox denied he ever filmed the woman during their sexual relationship.

Alex Cox

Cox went on to admit he showed a pornography video to Constable Barrett and Detective Kirk in 2021.

Cox said he told his mates it was he and the woman he was previously in a relationship with in the video, and Constable Barrett laughed.

“I was just joking around,” Cox said before he conceded it was in “very poor taste”.

Defence lawyer Paul McGirr said Cox could have been trying to talk up his “prowess in the sheets”.

In cross examination, Cox claimed the joke he made was “not at her expense”.

Mr McGirr asked why he allegedly told Constable Barrett “not to say anything” if the video was a joke and not of the woman.

Cox said Constable Barrett was a “loud mouth” and if his mates “took it literally they could think it was an actual thing”.

He denied he told Barrett the video was “red hot” meaning it was “risky”.

Cox also told the court that when he was approached by Professional Standards Command officers at a beach, they “demanded” his phone however he was not correctly cautioned as per legislation.

Alex Cox with his lawyer Paul McGirr. Picture: Ashleigh Tullis

During cross examination of the officer in charge of the case, Professional Standards Command’s Detective Sergeant Jason Savic admitted there were “oversights” in the investigation.

He said the original investigators downloaded the data from Cox’s phone and found about 10 porn videos but “nothing pertaining to the alleged victim”.

The court heard none of the witnesses were shown any of the porn videos from Cox’s phone to ascertain if those were in fact the videos they had been shown by Cox; nor were tattoos of the complainant shown to witnesses.

The court further heard there was no attempt made to find the woman’s collar and leash.

Following the closure of the Crown case, Magistrate Holly Kemp found Cox not guilty of the third charge of intentionally distributing an image without consent and it was withdrawn.

Police officer Emma Richardson told the court Cox showed her a photo of a naked woman however there was no sexual encounter captured in the photo.

Ms Kemp found there was insufficient evidence to prove the elements of the charge.

In closing submissions, the Crown prosecutor urged Ms Kemp to accept Cox made “clear admissions” the videos were of him and the woman, and the complainant’s evidence was clear about using a collar and leash.

Defence lawyer Paul McGirr said the prosecution case was very weak and neither Constable Barrett nor Detective Kirk identified tattoos on the woman in the video they watched.

He said both officers claimed they were shown the video in different locations and the only identifying evidence was the woman had “long black hair”.

Ms Kemp will give a decision on Thursday.