Ljupco Slaveski v The Queen (On the Application of the Prothonotary of Supreme Court of Victoria)

LJUPCO SLAVESKI
v
THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PROTHONOTARY OF SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA) & ANOR
[2012] HCASL 144
M42/2012

The Supreme Court of Victoria (Whelan J) convicted the applicant of contempt of court in proceedings before Kyrou J. The applicant was sentenced to two months' imprisonment. On the one hand, there were mitigating factors, including a mental disorder which reduced the applicant's moral culpability. On the other hand, the offence was serious and not isolated, the applicant was serving a suspended sentence at the time, and the apologies made by the applicant did not reveal genuine acceptance of responsibility or remorse.
An appeal to the Victorian Court of Appeal against conviction failed, as did an application for leave to appeal against sentence, save that the Court of Appeal set aside an order that the applicant be imprisoned for one month in default of payment of indemnity costs. Warren CJ, Nettle and Redlich JJA found no other sentencing error. And they rejected the applicant's challenges to the conviction, which centred on bias, a failure to grant an adjournment to obtain legal representation, and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).
The papers filed by the applicant in support of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court are almost unintelligible. They disclose no ground on which an appeal might succeed if special leave were granted.
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 has applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against his conviction and sentence for contempt of court. The matter originated in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the applicant was convicted and sentenced by Whelan J. An appeal against the conviction and a subsequent application for leave to appeal against the sentence were both dismissed by the Victorian Court of Appeal. The grounds of appeal to the High Court focus on the alleged errors in the proceedings before the Supreme Court of Victoria, including claims of bias, a failure to grant an adjournment, and alleged breaches of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

The primary legal issue for the High Court to consider was whether the applicant's application disclosed any ground on which an appeal might succeed. The Court noted that the applicant's papers were almost unintelligible and failed to identify any viable grounds for appeal. The Court further considered that the applicant's claims of bias, failure to grant an adjournment, and alleged breaches of the Charter were without merit. The Court of Appeal had already thoroughly examined these issues and found no error in the proceedings or the sentence. Given the lack of any plausible ground for appeal, the High Court dismissed the application for special leave.

In dismissing the application, the Court did not find it necessary to address the merits of the applicant's claims in detail, as the application itself did not provide a clear basis for appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant's papers failed to identify any error that could potentially lead to a successful appeal. The Court did not identify any exceptional circumstances that would warrant the grant of special leave. The Court directed the Registrar to prepare 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