Ljupco Slaveski v Paul Smith

LJUPCO SLAVESKI
v
PAUL SMITH & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 142
M29/2012

The applicant was convicted in the Magistrates' Court of Victoria of making a threat to kill. He appealed to the County Court. Judge Gullaci referred three questions of law to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria pursuant to s 33(1)(b) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The Court of Appeal (Warren CJ, Nettle and Redlich JJA) answered the questions adversely to the applicant. The applicant was represented by counsel before the Court of Appeal.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. It is doubtful that an appeal lies to this Court from the answers to the referred questions which the Court of Appeal gave. If not, the applicant's remedy lies in returning to Judge Gullaci, and, if that appeal fails, proceeding conventionally thereafter.
But even if an appeal does lie to this Court, the applicant has stated no ground for doubting the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions. The applicant's allegations of bias, conflict of interest and denial of justice must fail. There are other allegations which would depend on evidence, of which there is none. The applicant has not effectively challenged the Court of Appeal's legal reasoning.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

J.D. Heydon
13 November 2012 V.M. Bell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ljupco Slaveski, the applicant, sought special leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The original conviction was made by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where Slaveski was found guilty of making a threat to kill. He appealed the decision to the County Court, where Judge Gullaci referred three questions of law to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The Court of Appeal answered the questions against Slaveski, and he now seeks to appeal to the High Court.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether Slaveski could appeal the Court of Appeal's decision to the High Court. If an appeal was available, the secondary issue was whether the Court of Appeal's conclusions were correct. Slaveski argued that the Court of Appeal was biased, there was a conflict of interest, and justice was denied. However, the Court found that there was no evidence to support these claims and that the applicant had not effectively challenged the Court of Appeal's legal reasoning.

In its decision, the High Court found that it was doubtful whether an appeal lay to the Court from the Court of Appeal's answers to the referred questions. If an appeal was available, the Court found no ground to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions. The Court dismissed the application, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established