R v Slaveski - [2015] VSC 416

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CI 2013 04426

THE QUEEN

LUPCO SLAVESKI

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	2, 17 October 2013; 2 December 2013; 3 February 2014; 14 April 2014; 16, 17 and 18 June 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Slaveski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 416

---

Contempt – 9 charges of Contempt of Court between August 2012 and March 2014 – Very serious contempt in the face of the court – Magistrates’ Court - Threats via telephone and emails to Justices, Associate Justices, Judges, Associates, solicitors, staff in registry and their families - Violent, abusive, offensive, threatening language, threats of physical and sexual harm - Attempts to obstruct the administration of justice - Allegations of impropriety and corruption for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of the court - Mr Slaveski’s mental health condition reduces the sentence otherwise imposed - fixed, rigid, biased viewpoint – no remorse.

Sentence - 23 Months’ imprisonment with a minimum of 15 months before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Langmead QC Ms F Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitor
For the Accused

HER HONOUR:

Although the Respondent is not present in court my remarks will still be addressed to him personally, as is the practice when sentencing a person to imprisonment. I shall publish and send a copy of these sentencing remarks to him via the email addresses that we have.

Lupco Slaveski, you were convicted on 12 August 2015 of contempt of court on nine separate occasions. I found you not guilty of contempt of court in respect of three other matters alleged against you. The contempt’s of which you have been convicted occurred on 31 August 2012, 19 August, 5 October, 7 October and 15 September 2013, two separate occasions on 5 February, again on 25 February and 11 March 2014.

As can be seen, your behaviour and use of abusive, threatening emails has occurred over a lengthy period, being over a year-and-a-half of on-going contemptuous activity. The contempt’s proven against you and the evidence constituting those contempt’s has been set out in full detail in the judgment of The Queen v Lupco Slaveski.[1] The majority of your contempt’s, seven out of the nine, have been committed via emails sent to a variety of people connected with the courts.
[1][2015] VSC 400.

The two other contempt matters occurred as a result, firstly, of a telephone call made by you to a judge’s associate, and another was a contempt in the face of the court before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen. The contempt in the face of courts is undoubtedly a very serious form of contempt, in that you threatened his Honour whilst he was sitting as a judge and stated that you had seen him outside court whilst telling him to back-off your cases, to leave your matters alone. Those…

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.

Continue reading R v Slaveski

Details

AGLC: R v Slaveski [2015] VSC 416
Case: [2015] VSC 416
Decision Date: 14 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Slaveski, the defendant was found guilty of nine charges of contempt of court, occurring between August 2012 and March 2014. The contemptuous conduct involved a series of threats via telephone and email to various court officials, including Justices, Associates, Judges, and their families, as well as solicitors and staff in the registry. The language used was violent, abusive, offensive, and threatening, often involving threats of physical and sexual harm. The defendant also attempted to obstruct the administration of justice and made allegations of impropriety and corruption aimed at improperly influencing court decisions.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant’s contemptuous conduct, which was considered extremely serious. The court had to weigh the defendant's mental health condition, which was noted to reduce the severity of the sentence, against the gravity of his actions. The court also considered the defendant's fixed, rigid, and biased viewpoint and the absence of remorse.

In reaching its decision, the court acknowledged the defendant's mental health issues but found that they did not excuse his contempt. The court found the conduct to be extremely serious, involving repeated threats and attempts to obstruct justice. Despite the mitigating factor of the defendant’s mental health condition, the court concluded that the public interest required a significant punishment. The court imposed a sentence of 23 months' imprisonment, with a minimum of 15 months to be served before the defendant became eligible for parole.

Orders