R v Slaveski

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2013 4426

THE QUEEN (on the application of the Attorney-General of the State of Victoria)	Applicant
v
LUPCO SLAVESKI	Respondent

---

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 JUDGMENT:	12 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Lupco Slaveski
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 400

---

CONTEMPT – six bank cheques sent to judges and CEO of court – no identification of sender – no threats, demands or abuse contained with the cheques – money owed to court by respondent - sending of cheques not a contempt - Tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice ‑ Improper pressure on a party ‑ Threats of violence to judges, staff and legal practitioners ‑ Threats of violence for the purpose of intimidation of a party – Threats of violence for the purpose of intimidating judges – Threats of violence for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of judges – Abuse of judges, staff and legal practitioners ‑ Allegations of impropriety and corruption for the purpose of intimidating judges ‑ Allegations of impropriety and corruption for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of judges ‑ Attempting to undermine the authority of the court.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr Langmead QC with Ms J Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitors Office
For the Respondent	Unrepresented

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

History of Respondent’s relevant Court Actions......................................................................... 1

The declarations sought.................................................................................................................... 4

The alleged particulars of contempt............................................................................................... 6

Evidence relating to charges 1-3.................................................................................................... 27

Affidavit of Andrew White, Victoria Police................................................................................ 28

Evidence relating to charge 4......................................................................................................... 32

Police Interview of 5 September 2012........................................................................................... 35

Evidence relating to charge 5......................................................................................................... 39

Evidence relating to charge 6......................................................................................................... 42

Evidence relating to charge 7......................................................................................................... 44

Evidence relating to charge 8......................................................................................................... 45

Evidence relating to charge 9......................................................................................................... 47

Evidence relating to charge 10....................................................................................................... 50

Evidence relating to charge 11....................................................................................................... 51

Evidence relating to charge 12....................................................................................................... 53

General legal principles applicable.............................................................................................. 56

Decisions in respect of the Charges.............................................................................................. 61

Charges 1 — 3.............................................................................................................................. 61
Charge 4........................................................................................................................................ 66
Charge 5........................................................................................................................................ 66
Charge 6........................................................................................................................................ 67
Charge 7........................................................................................................................................ 68
Charge 8........................................................................................................................................ 68
Charge 9........................................................................................................................................ 69
Charge 10...................................................................................................................................... 70
Charge 11...................................................................................................................................... 71
Charge 12...................................................................................................................................... 71

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

On 5 July 2012, six Westpac bank cheques, each in the sum of $5000, in sealed envelopes were delivered to the Supreme Court of Victoria. They were all hand addressed and postmarked “Epping Plaza – 4 July 2012”.

The cheques were addressed to Chris Maxwell, being his Honour Maxwell P (“the first cheque”). The other cheques were addressed, without any reference to their appropriate titles, to Marilyn Warren (her Honour Warren CJ), Geoffrey Nettle (his Honour Nettle JA, as he then was), Simon Whelan (his Honour Whelan JA), Emilios Kyrou (his Honour Kyrou J, as he then was), (“the four cheques”). The sixth cheque was addressed to David Ware (David Ware CEO Supreme Court, as he then was), (“the sixth cheque”).

History of Respondent’s relevant Court Actions

At the time of the delivery of the six cheques, which was the original initiating action leading to the issuing of contempt proceedings, the respondent Lupco Slaveski (“Slaveski”) had numerous matters pending, and/or recently dealt with, in the Supreme Court.

In particular, the court proceedings that may be considered relevant in respect of the first cheque were:[1]
[1]Second Further Amended Originating Motion 14 April 2014 as contained in the particulars of contempt at paragraphs 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d):

(a) On 28 January 2010, the respondent was found guilty in County Court case number CR-06-00160 of one count of aggravated burglary, three counts of assault and one count of reckless conduct endangering persons (“the convictions”);

(b) On 23 February 2010, the respondent filed a notice for leave to appeal against the convictions in matter number S AP CR 2010 034 (“the first appeal proceedings”);

(c) The First Appeal Proceeding came before Maxwell P, Buchanan and Weinberg JJA (“the presiding judges”) for hearing on 13 February 2012 and again on 14 June 2012;

(d) The respondent was successful in the first appeal proceeding. Judgment was delivered on 18 February 2013 (Slaveski v The Queen [2013] VSCA 16).

In respect of the four cheques[2], and the sixth cheque, the proceedings that may be considered relevant were[3]:
[2]Second Further Amended Originating Motion 14 April 2014 as contained in the particulars of contempt at paragraphs 4 (g)
[3]Second Further Amended Originating Motion 14 April 2014 as contained in the particulars of contempt at paragraphs 5 (g)

(i) an appeal in matter number S APCR 2010 034 involving the Respondent had been heard and Judgment was pending before Maxwell P, Buchanan and Weinberg JJA;

(ii) an appeal in the matter of Slaveski v The Magistrates’ Court and Anor (S APCI 2011 0116) which had been commenced by the respondent but was dormant pending the outcome of the underlying proceeding in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court;

(iii) an appeal in the matter of Slaveski v The State of Victoria and Ors (S CI 2009 08351) which had been commenced by the respondent but was dormant, pending an application by the respondent to have it relisted;

(iv) the matter of Slaveski v The Office of Public Prosecutions and Anor (S CI 2009 10282) which had been adjourned by Vickery J on 24 November 2009 and was dormant pending an application by the respondent to have it relisted for hearing; and

(v) an appeal by the respondent which had been dismissed in Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd [S CI 2011 4500] and on which a notice of appeal was filed by the respondent on 5 July 2012, the same day as the cheques were received by the Supreme Court.

The allegations of the Respondent sending the six cheques to the various recipients have proceeded by way of seeking three declarations of contempt instituted by originating motion between the parties issued on 23 August 2013.

The alleged conduct in respect of the six cheques has been referred to during the hearing and these reasons as charges one through three. Charge 1 refers to the first cheque addressed to President Maxwell, Charge 2 relates to the four cheques addressed to Chief Justice Warren, Appeal Justices Nettle and Whelan and Justice Kyrou. Charge 3 relates to the sixth cheque addressed to the CEO of the Supreme Court David Ware (as they all then were). There are accordingly, three declarations sought that the respondent is in contempt of the Court, being the first three declarations.

There are in total 12 declarations of contempt sought against the respondent and for clarity they have been referred to by charge numbers, being one through 12. The allegations relate to a number of separate occasions, separate actions, and a variety of documents alleged to be sent by the respondent to a number of different people.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the 12 counts of contempt fell into three relatively distinct categories — category A being Charges 1 to 3, the conduct of the respondent in sending six bank cheques each in the sum of $5,000 to five judges of the Supreme Court of Victoria and one to the Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court on or about 4 July 2012.

Category B being Counts 4 and 6—12 which is described as conduct which is abusive of, and threatening to, judicial officers, employees and those instructed to pursue litigation on behalf of those judicial officers, consisting of a telephone call and various emails.

And, finally, Category C, being behaviour by the respondent in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen which is argued to be abusive, threatening and disruptive, being Charge 5.

Although the submissions of the applicant were made based upon the above categories, I have listed, considered and dealt with each of the factual allegations separately, and ultimately made separate determinations in respect of each of the allegations. Although the same legal principles apply to all of the matters, they have each received separate consideration.

The respondent Lupco Slaveski did not appear to answer the charges in respect of the charges of contempt before this Court. I ruled that he could be served by way of substituted service, as I had formed the view that he was avoiding service of the documents[4]. I later ruled that I would proceed with the charges in his absence for the reasons outlined in that ruling[5]. Accordingly, I need to ensure, despite his absence from this Court, that the Crown have satisfied me in respect of all of the relevant matters beyond a reasonable doubt.
[4]Transcript 2/10/2013 pp 15 ff
[5]Ruling 17 June 2014, transcript page 57-66

The declarations sought

The first declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent (Slaveski) be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent to the Supreme Court a bank cheque in the sum of $5000, made out to and in an envelope addressed to his Honour President Maxwell, drawn from a savings account belonging to the respondent at the Westpac bank on or about 4 July 2012.

The second declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent four bank cheques, each in the sum of $5000, made out to and in envelopes addressed to her Honour Warren CJ, his Honour Nettle JA, his Honour Whelan JA and his Honour Kyrou J, drawn from a savings account belonging to the respondent at the Westpac bank on or about 4 July 2012.

The third declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent a bank cheque in the sum of $5000 made out to and in an envelope addressed to Mr David Ware, Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court, drawn from a savings account belonging to the respondent at the Westpac bank on or about 4 July 2012.

The fourth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for his conduct and words spoken on 31 August 2012 during a telephone conversation with Daniel Coombes, associate to the Honourable Associate Justice Daly.

The fifth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for his conduct and words spoken on 19 August 2013 during a proceeding in the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen.

The sixth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to Stephen Lee of the Victorian Government Solicitors Office on 5 October 2013.

The seventh declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to Stephen Lee of the Victorian Government Solicitors Office on 7 October 2013.

The eighth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to the Supreme Court on 15 September 2013.

The ninth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to the Supreme Court on 5 February 2014.

The tenth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to the Supreme Court on 5 February 2014.

The eleventh declaration that is sought is:

declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to the Supreme Court on 25 February 2014.

The twelfth declaration that is sought is:

A declaration that the respondent be adjudged guilty of contempt of court for sending or causing to be sent an email to the Supreme Court on 11 March 2014.

The alleged particulars of contempt

(Charge 1) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:
The conduct of the respondent in sending a bank cheque of $5000 made out to and addressed to his Honour Maxwell P was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the conduct:
(i)was an improper, private communication by a litigant to a judge before whom a case was pending;
(ii)was an interference with a judicial officer in the performance of his duties in the proceeding;
(iii)was in invitation to a judicial officer to engage in improper and/or corrupt conduct;
(iv)by reason of (iii), enlivened consideration of the issue of recusal by his Honour in the proceeding;
(v)by reason of (iii), created a circumstance requiring his Honour or the Court to take positive steps to remove any apprehension of impropriety and/or corruption; and/or
(vi)by reason of (iii), had a real risk of tarnishing the reputation of his Honour and/or the Court.
(Charge 2) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:
The conduct of the respondent (Slaveski) in sending the four cheques each of $5000 made out to four Supreme Court judges (including judges of the Court of Appeal) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the conduct:
(i)was an invitation to four judicial officers to engage in improper and/or corrupt conduct;
(ii)by reason of (i), created a circumstance requiring each judicial officer or the Court to take positive steps to remove any apprehension of impropriety and/or corruption; and/or
(iii)by reason of (i), had a real risk of tarnishing the reputation of each judicial officer and/or the Court;
(iv)was an interference with the usual process of allocation of judges to any future cases involving the respondent in that it enlivened the issue of recusal in such cases; and/or
(v)by reason of (ii) and/or (iv), was disruptive of the Court’s administrative processes.
(Charge 3) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:
The conduct of the respondent in sending a bank cheque made out to and addressed to Mr David Ware, Chief Executive Officer of the Supreme Court, was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the conduct:
(i)was an invitation to a senior employee of the Supreme Court to engage in the improper and/or corrupt conduct;
(ii)by reason of (i), created a circumstance requiring the court to take positive steps to remove any apprehension of impropriety and/or corruption;
(iii)by reason of (i), had a real risk of tarnishing the reputation of the Court; and/or
(iv)by reason of (i), was disruptive of the Court’s administrative processes.
(Charge 4) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a) On 25 July 2011, the Magistrates Court gave judgment against the Respondent in favour of Rotstein & Associates Pty Ltd (Rotstein), his former solicitors for $100,000 in relation to legal fees incurred in defending a proceeding brought against the Respondent by the Commonwealth Bank (the Magistrates Court Order)

(b) On 19 August 2011, the Respondent appealed the Magistrates Court Order

(c) On 23 September 2011, by summons, the Respondent sought a stay of the Magistrates Court Order (the summons)

(d) On 26 September 2011, the summons was returned before her honour Associate Justice Daly and oral application was made by Rotstein to dismiss the appeal (the Application)

(e) The Application was heard before Her Honour Associate Justice Daly on 14 November 2011 and was dismissed by her Honour by orders dated 22 June 2012

(f) The Respondent subsequently brought further applications and appeals in the matter of Slaveski v Rotstein and came before His Honour Kaye J on 3 September 2012, his Honour Dixon J on 17 September 2012 and their Honours Warren CJ and Maxwell P on 16 November 2012.

(g) On 31 August 2012, at approximately 4.10 pm, the Respondent telephoned Mr Coombes, Associate to the Honourable Associate Justice Daly.

(h) During the telephone conversation, the Respondent made the following statements:

(i) Associate Justice Daly is personally responsible for the bankruptcy notice I received.

(ii) I will come to the court with guns and my own security.

(iii) Associate Justice Daly needs to fix the fucking problem.

(iv) The money will come out of her house.

(v) She made the mess, she will need to fix it.

(vi) She is not a judge she is just an assistant.

(vii) I will come after her, sue her and put a caveat on her property.

(viii) She is now on my bad side.

(ix) If cops threaten me with a .38 calibre, it’s going to go one way or the other.

(x) I told President Maxwell to meet me at the cemetery with the Acting DPP.

(xi) We will have a shoot-out at the cemetery, I don’t give a fuck.

(xii) The Supreme Court is corrupt.

(xiii) I am a good man but I can turn.

(xiv) I have taken on the cops for 15 years. They don’t have the balls to take me on.

(i) At the time fo the call, the Respondent had another different case, pending before Maxwell P ([S APCR 2010 0034])

(j) The Respondent’s conduct in making the telephone call and saying the words set out in paragraphs (h)(i) to (xiv) generally, and in the context in which the words were spoken, were intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice, in that those words were intended to and/or had a tendency to:

i.      Interfere with a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties;
ii.      Intimidate a judicial officer in connection with the performance of his or her duties’
iii.      Dissuade a judicial officer from continuing to perform his or her duties in connection with proceedings involving the Respondent;
iv.      Place improper pressure on a judicial officer in the performance of his or her duties;
v.      Improperly influence the outcome fo judicial proceedings; and/or punish a judicial officer for decisions or findings made by him or her which were adverse to the respondent.

(Charge 5) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)that on 19 August 2013 the respondent attended a hearing at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court in the matter of Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates proceeding No. W02189172 before his Honour Chief Magistrate Lauritsen.
(b)During the hearing, the respondent said the following words to his Honour Chief Magistrate Lauritsen:
(i)I want to let you know look you in the face, and let you know, you play with my property, I’ll take your property off you.
(ii)Shut the, you shut …
(iii)I am telling you to back off my cases.
(iv)I’m not asking you, I am telling you to back off my cases. You come after my house, I come after your house.
(v)If they go outside and I get whatever you guys have got. I don’t give an F.
(vi)Ok you play with my property, I go over your property.
(vii)I don’t give an F no more about nobody.
(viii)You people mean nothing to me anymore OK, you have to know that.
(ix)I saw you once outside, stay away from my property. Stay away from my property.

(c)The respondent said those words in a menacing and aggressive tone.
(d)The respondent’s conduct in saying the words set out in paragraph (b) (i)-(ix) generally, and in the context in which the words were spoken, and the respondent’s demeanour in saying the words, was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that those words and that conduct:
(i)contain threats to the presiding magistrate: sub-paragraphs (i), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi) and (ix);
(ii)were abusive of the presiding magistrate: sub-paragraphs (ii), (v), (vii) and (x).
(iii)were abusive of the court: sub-paragraphs (ii), (v), (vii) and (viii);
(iv)were disrespectful of the authority of the court; and/or
(v)were disruptive and disturbed the proceedings.

(Charge 6) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)On 4 October 2013, between 4.49pm and 4.58pm the Victorian Government Solicitors Office sent three emails to the respondent at [email protected], serving court documents in this proceeding pursuant to an order of substituted service of King J made on 7 October 2013.
(b)Mr Stephen Lee, Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor, was copied into each of those emails with the address: stephen.lee@[email protected]
(c)Mr Lee is a legal representative of the applicant in these proceedings and is listed as the solicitor responsible for these proceedings on the amended originating motion and summons served on the respondent in this proceeding.
(d)On 5 October 2013, at 6.11am Mr Lee received an email from the respondent at the address: stephen.lee@[email protected] with subject “DOG!” which stated as follows:
Stephen Lee

You cockroache,
I have been suggesting that we get the Federal/High Court and the Federal police involved to investigate the CORRUPTION for the past five years, you mother fucker, but you do NOT have the balls to do that.
And NOW you want to USE judges to get me in court, and you plan to kill me, you come, you come you DOG.
And you mother fucker bosses have tied to KILL me, on many many occasions, BUT – No success, so what do you do, you people arrest and imprison my children, you fucked up DOG!
I will sue you!
I will engage a process server to get your proper/house address so it’s one/on one!
You know where I live,
I know where you live.

(e)The email was stated on its face to have been sent by Ljupco Sky Slaveski.
(f)The email came from the email address [email protected]
(g)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email set out in sub-paragraph (d) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that:
(i)constituted improper pressure on Mr Lee in his capacity as a legal representative of a party to these proceedings; and/or
(ii)constituted threats of violence for the purpose of intimidating Mr Lee in his capacity as the legal representative of a party to these proceedings.

(Charge 7) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)On 4 October 2013 between 4.49pm and 4.58pm the Victorian Government Solicitors Office sent three emails to the respondent at [email protected], serving court documents in this proceeding pursuant to an order of substituted service of King J made on 2 October 2013.
(b)On 7 October 2013, at 12.12pm, the Victorian Government Solicitors Office sent a further email to the respondent at [email protected], serving the correct version of the summons in this proceeding pursuant to an order of substituted service of King J made on 2 October 2013.
(c)Mr Stephen Lee, Assistant to the Victorian Government Solicitor, was copied into each of the emails in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) with the address: stephen.lee@[email protected]
(d)Mr Lee is a legal representative of the applicant in these proceedings and is listed as the solicitor responsible for these proceedings on the amended originating motion and summons served on the respondent in this proceeding.
(e)On 7 October 2013, at 6.20pm, Mr Lee received an email from the respondent at the address: stephen.lee@[email protected] which stated (inter alia) as follows:
You M… F… keep on F…, keep on F… up
Leave Mrs J King alone she is a nice lady, do NOT use Mrs J King like you use Mrs Williams J to get me in court, and pull seven to eight guns on me, and I had NO weapon, the only weapon I had to defend myself was my dick.
My dick is NOT a weapon, but can fuck your WIFES, if you have NO balls to get to me, so you lock up my children, you mother fuckers!
I told you ALL, NOW, you Lee or Daniel you mother fuckers or your bosses PUT your LIFES on the line as SECURITY for my LIFE, then I will be back, do not use the judge/s…

(f)The email was stated on its face to have been sent by Ljupco Sky Slaveski.
(g)The email came from the email address [email protected]
(h)The email was signed off from L.Sky.Slaveski.
(i)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (e) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that email contained statements that:
(i)constituted improper pressure on Mr Lee in his capacity as a legal representative of a party to these proceedings; and/or
(ii)constituted threats of violence for the purpose of intimidating Mr Lee in his capacity as a legal representative of a party to the proceedings.

(Charge 8) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)On 15 October 2012, the Attorney-General made an application in proceeding No. SCI 201205803 for the respondent in this proceeding to be declared a vexatious litigant (“the vexatious litigant proceeding”)
(b)On 16 September 2013, the vexatious litigant proceeding was listed before her Honour Williams J in the Supreme Court. The respondent attended that hearing in part.
(c)On 15 September 2013, at 5.11pm, Kayla Martin, Associate to her Honour Williams J, and Shane Draper, Acting Practice Court Coordinator, received an email from the respondent titled ‘Deal of Entry Supreme Court’.
(d)The email stated:
Dear Shane/Andrew
Please give this to David Ware and Mrs Williams J and attached a document.

(e)The attached document was stated to be:
To David Ware an employee of the Supreme Court

And stated (inter alia):
I do not fear you or your PSO’s/police officers that work for you.
Remember this — you and all you people in the Supreme Court!
You/s come after me equals I come after you! You/s come after my house equals I come after your house/s. You/s want my car/s, if you want them, I will bring on me STREET in from the Supreme Court, and damage them or/burn them, you tell me what you want, BUT you/s will NOT have NOTHING FROM ME.
I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK ANY MORE ABOUT ALL YOU PEOPLE!...
DAVID I WILL PUT YOU ON NOTICE if — IF you tell any of the PSO/police to come after me and try to shoot me, and I survive, and find out that you ordered a HIT — on — ME. Then I come after you! If you/s DO NOT want to me to come to the Supreme Court/owned by the people of Victoria and by me. THEN PAY me my money an amount of $5,000.000.00 that I have lost from yours and Vic police and the vic. State, that I have lost three shops, to companies and over 20 prestige cars, Mercedes, BMW audi’s E, T, C, then I = Lupco Slaveski will NEVER come to the Supreme Court!

(f) The email came from the email address: [email protected]
(g)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (c) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that were intended to and/or had a tendency to:
(i)threaten with violence a senior employee of the Supreme Court;
(ii)threaten with violence employees and officers of the Supreme Court generally;
(iii)threaten with extortion employees and officers of the Supreme Court;
(iv)interfere with a judicial officer in the performance of her duties;
(v)intimidate a judicial officer in the performance of her duties;
(vi)dissuade a judicial officer from continuing to perform her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent.
(vii)place improper pressure on a judicial officer in the performance of her duties; and/or
(viii)improperly influence the outcome of judicial proceedings.

(d)Mr Lee is a legal representative of the applicant in these proceedings and is listed as the solicitor responsible for these proceedings on the amended originating motion and summons served on the respondent in this proceeding.

(Charge 9) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)The respondent was the appellant in proceeding No. APCR 1020034 which was heard before the Honourable President Maxwell and their Honours Buchanan and Weinberg JJA on 13 February 2012 and 14 June 2012. Judgment was delivered in that proceeding on 18 February 2013 (Slaveski v The Queen [2013] VSCA 16).
(b)The respondent was the respondent in proceeding No. SCI 2011 04689. On 20 January 2012, his Honour Whelan J sentenced the respondent to two month’s imprisonment, (R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7).
(c)On 20 March 2012, an appeal against conviction and sentence of the respondent in the matter in the preceding sub-paragraph was denied by her Honour Chief Justice Warren and their Honours Nettle and Redlich JJA (R v Slaveski [2012] VSCA 48).
(d)On 15 October 2012, the Attorney-General made an application to the Supreme Court in proceeding No. SCI 2012 05803 for the respondent in this proceeding to be declared a vexatious litigant (the vexatious litigant proceeding).
(e)On 13 September 2013, the first amended originating motion was filed in these proceedings and they were listed before her Honour King J.
(f)On 16 September 2013, the Vexatious Litigant Proceeding was heard before her Honour Williams J in the Supreme Court and was attended in part by the respondent.
(g)Directions hearings and substituted service applications in this proceeding were heard before her Honour King J on 2 October 2013, 2 November 2013 and 3 February 2014.
(h)The respondent did not attend any of those hearings but some were attended by his wife Snezana Slaveska.
(i)On 5 February 2014 at 10.59am Helen Marriott, Associate to her Honour King J, and Viv Macgillivray, Executive Associate to her Honour Chief Justice Warren, and the Chambers of his Honour the President Maxwell received an email titled “Yes – I am Slaveski”.
(j)The contents of the email in the preceding sub-paragraph are attached to the particulars of contempt as annexure A.
(k)The applicant relies on the entirety of the email and in particular the following passages;
(i)“that mother fucker Chief Judge Warren corrupted — chook fucked up dog, put me in prison with Simon — you dogs”.
(ii)“you know — you and you — mother fucken friends are provoking me, pushing me, and I start to think of defending myself. Do you want me to start killing people? You tell me when to start killing people? You tell me Mrs King so called judge, you give the ORDERS, you order me to kill, I will KILL — no problem! But, if my hands get on you judges you are finished you corrupted mother fuckers”.
(iii)I am over 50 and mentally sick, you people have to kill me or I will kill you/them I do not care, or simply (leave me alone)!
(iv)I will get that poofter/faget Whellan, I will fuck him in the bum, and he is finished, he lock me up for two months for nothing the mother fucker. One day, One day I will get him, and I will get every single of YOU!
(v)You think you are THE ONLY one to ORDER, how about if I start ORDERING, you people are FINISHED!
(vi)You can NOT go out of Australia, if I find any of you anywhere around the WORLD you are FINISHED.

(l)The email came from the email address: [email protected]
(m)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (i) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that were intended to and/or had a tendency to:
(i)threaten a judicial officer or officers with violence;
(ii)threaten to kill a judicial officer or officers;
(iii)interfere with a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(iv)intimidate a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(v)dissuade a judicial officer or officers from continuing to perform his or her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent;
(vi)place improper pressure on a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(vii)improperly influence a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(viii)punish a judicial officer or officers for decisions or findings made by him or her which were adverse to the respondent.
(ix)be abusive of a judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer; and/or
(x)be personally offensive to judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer.

(Charge 10) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:
(a)the respondent was the appellant in proceeding No. SAPCR 1020034 which was heard before the Honourable President Maxwell and their Honours Buchanan and Weinberg JJA on 13 February 2012 and 14 June 2012. Judgment was delivered in that proceeding on 18 February 2013 (Slaveski v The Queen [2013] VSCA 16).
(b)The respondent was the respondent in proceeding No. SCI 2011 04689. On 20 January 2012. His Honour Whelan J sentenced the respondent to two month’s imprisonment, (R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7).
(c)On 20 March 2012, an appeal against conviction and sentence of the respondent in the matter in the preceding sub-paragraph was denied by her Honour Chief Justice Warren and their Honours Nettle and Redlich JJA (R v Slaveski [2012] VSCA 48).
(d)On 13 September2013, the first amended originating motion was filed in these proceedings and they were listed before her Honour King J
(e)Directions hearings and substituted service applications in this proceeding were heard before her Honour King J on 2 October 2013, 2 November 2013 and 3 February 2014.
(f)The respondent did not attend any of those hearings but some hearings were attended by his wife Snezana Slaveska.
(g)The Victorian Government Solicitors Office were solicitors in each of the proceedings identified in sub-paragraphs (a)-(c) above.
(h)The Victorian Government Solicitors Office are solicitors in this proceeding.
(i)On 5 February 2014 at 9.25pm, Helen Marriott, Associate to her Honour King J, Viv Macgillivray, Executive Associate to her Honour Chief Justice Warren, and the Chambers of his Honour the President Maxwell received an email titled “I am sick — you mother fuckers, I put needles in my head in Thailand”.
(j)The contents of the email included the following words:
see I put needles in my head/brain, but if I get a judge of State of Victoria, servant or a Vict police that have been touchering/problems for me for 15 years (I swear to GOD and my children, I will PUT nails in their head/brain! Finally you all State of Vic, all judge, and Vic police chiefs (call Trevor Lockwood Sen —Seargent —station commander Preston Police, sit talk, and finnalyse this so we can all go ON with OUR — lifes! If NOT, you come after me, I came after you = SIMPLE = that is called natural justice and human rights.
(k)The email came from the email address: [email protected]
(l)The email was stated to be from “l.sky.s”
(m)The email attached a photograph of a back view of the respondent’s head with wires attached with the file title “Sky bkk doctors — head.jpg”.
(n)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (i) with the attachment in sub-paragraph (m) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that were intended to and/or had a tendency to:
(i)threaten a judicial officer or officers with violence;
(ii)threaten the legal representatives of a party to the proceedings with violence;
(iii)interfere with a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(iv)intimidate a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(v)intimidate the legal representatives of a party to the proceedings;
(vi)dissuade a judicial officer or officers from continuing to perform his or her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent;
(vi)place improper pressure on a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(vii)improperly influence a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties; and/or
(ix)punish a judicial officer or officers for decisions or findings made by him or her which were adverse to the respondent.

(Charge 11) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)On 15 October 2012, the Attorney-General made an application to the Supreme Court for the respondent in this proceeding to be declared a vexatious litigant (the vexatious litigant proceeding).
(b)On 13 September 2013, the first amended originating motion was filed in these proceedings and they were listed before her Honour King J.
(c)On 16 September 2013, the vexatious litigant proceeding was heard before her Honour Williams J in the Supreme Court.
(d)Directions hearings and substituted service applications in this proceeding were heard before her Honour King J on 2 October 2013, 2 November 2013 and 3 February 2014
(e)On 25 February 2014, her Honour Williams J handed down her judgment in the vexatious litigant proceeding.
(f)On 25 February 2014 at 4.30pm, Kayla Martin, Associate to her Honour Williams J, Helen Marriott, Associate to her Honour King J and the Chambers of President Maxwell received an email titled “William ha, ha, judgment Slaveski’s answer in time”.
(g)The email in the proceeding sub-paragraph included the following words:
WHAT — do you want from me you mother fuckers crooks YOU Williams so called judge invited me to your court, then left for coffee break/and ordered 8 PSO/police officers to take their guns to pointed at me and to kill me — you fucken old bitch.
Snezana TXT and told me -
I will now sent you a photo of my sexy body — just to tell you what I think of you. BUT after reading your judgment I will probably send you a photo of my dick!
You ALL have made mi more sick, now I don’t have tablets. Xanax, Aropex, Valium, so now I drink and fuck all the sluts and I would not mind fucking you, you come and meet me in Europe or Bali, because you ordered eight guns on e.
I will give you three days to sent me a copy of the TRANSCRIPT, and IF — you, if you talk rubbish, I will take a photo of my dick and sent it to you! All so you old bitch, why don’t you release the CCTV from your court where you and your friends dogs ordered 8 guns on me — you all corrupted mother fuckers…

(h)The email attached a photograph of the respondent with a bare chest in underwear with the file title “my sexy body.jpg”
(i)The email came from the email address: [email protected]
(j)The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (f) with the attachment in sub-paragraph (h) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that were intended to and/or had a tendency to:
(i)threaten a judicial officer or officers in the performance of their duties;
(ii)interfere with the judicial officer or officers in the performance of her duties;
(iii)intimidate a judicial officer or officers in the performance of her duties;
(iv)dissuade a judicial officer or officers from continuing to perform her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent;
(v)place improper pressure on a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(vi)improperly influence a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(vii)punish a judicial officer for decisions or findings made by her which were adverse to the respondent.
(viii)be abusive of a judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer; and/or
(ix)be personally offensive to a judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer.

(Charge 12) - The alleged particulars of contempt are as follows:

(a)The respondent was the plaintiff in proceeding No. 8519 of 2006. The matter was heard by His Honour Kyrou J and judgment was delivered on 1 October 2010 (Slaveski v Victoria [2010] VSC 441).
(b)The respondent was the appellant in proceeding No. APCR 1020034 which was heard before the Honourable President Maxwell and their Honours Buchanan and Weinberg JJA on 13 February 2012 and 14 June 2012. Judgment was delivered in that proceeding on 18 February 2013 (Slaveski v The Queen [2013] VSCA 16).
(c)The respondent was the respondent in proceeding No. SCI 2011 04689. On 20 January 2012, his Honour Whelan J sentenced the respondent to two month’s imprisonment, (R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7).
(d)On 20 March 2012, an appeal against conviction and sentence of the respondent in the matter in the preceding sub-paragraph was denied by her Honour Chief Justice Warren and their Honours Nettle and Redlich JJA (R v Slaveski [2012] VSCA 48).
(e)On 15 October 2012, the Attorney-General made an application to the Supreme Court for the respondent in this proceeding to be declared a vexatious litigant (the vexatious litigant proceeding).
(f)On 13 September 2013, the first amended originating motion was filed in these proceedings and they were listed before her Honour King J.
(g)On 16 September 2013, the vexatious litigant proceeding was heard before her Honour Williams J in the Supreme Court.
(h)The Victorian Government Solicitors Office are solicitors in this proceeding.
(i)On 25 February 2014, her Honour Williams J handed down her judgment in the vexatious litigant proceeding.
(j)On 11 March 2014 at 2.31am, Kayla Martin, Associate to her Honour Williams J, Helen Marriot, Associate to her Honour King J and the Chambers of President Maxwell received an email titled “You corrupted pussys — muther fucker have costed me millions of dollars, my health and 15 years of tocher and problems, I am NOT — NOT scared of you dogs any MORE!”.
(k)The contents of the email are annexed as Annexure B.
(l)The email attached to photograph of male genitalia and a photograph of the back of the respondent’s head with attached needles.
(m)The files had the names “My dick.jpg” and “20 needles.jpg”.
(n)The applicant relies on the entirety of the email and in particular the attached photographs and the following passages:
(i)I will be your worst nightmare.
(ii)Because if they miss me — not kill me, I will kill all of them including every person that was involved.
(iii)I am prepare to fuck any woman/judges at any age if = if she wants me —ok.
(iv)You say you see a pattern, the only pattern that I could give you — or another woman, is if you come to Pattya, Bali, Bangkok and I will give yoyu a good pattern of fucking — sucking a licking.
(v)You Supreme Court dogs put me a solicitor that (worked for YOU = x‑Supreme Court employee) and the other detectived/police brother, but they TOLD me the TRUTH because they are SCARED, like NOW, I like YOU all to be SCARED, I was scared for 15 years, NOW its your turn.
(vi)Attorney-General my dick, he tells corrupted police to lock me up, but corrupte police scared, because I will breath thir arms and legs!, so they SOLD Robert DOG!
(vii)That Greek mothyer fucker Judge Kyrou that misslead me to SUE — fuck that pufter!
(viii)Whellan — poofter, fegat — cocksucker.
(ix)But not, you don’t have to respect me, but fear me you dogs!

(o)The email came from the email address: [email protected]. The email was stated to be from L Slaveski. The respondent’s conduct in sending or causing to be sent the email in sub-paragraph (J) and the attachments in sub-paragraph (l) was intended to and/or had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that the email contained statements that were intended to and/or had a tendency to:
(i)threaten a judicial officer or officers in the performance of their duties;
(ii)threaten legal representatives of a party to the proceedings.
(iii)threaten a party to the proceedings;
(iv)interfere with the judicial officer or officers in the performance of her duties;
(v)intimidate a judicial officer or officers in the performance of her duties;
(vi)dissuade a judicial officer or officers from continuing to perform her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent;
(vii)place improper pressure on a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(viii)improperly influence a judicial officer or officers in the performance of his or her duties;
(ix)punish a judicial officer or officers for decisions or findings made by her which were adverse to the respondent.;
(x)be abusive of a judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer; and/or
(xi)be personally offensive to a judicial officer or officers in his or her role as a judicial officer.

The first matter is to determine whether the applicant has proved the allegations contained within the particulars, upon the evidence produced during the hearing. The subsequent issue for determination is accepting the evidence that I determine is truthful, reliable and accurate, does it amount to a contempt in respect of the individual charges 1 to 12

Evidence relating to charges 1-3

The allegation in respect of each of the six cheques is that the respondent Slaveski either sent, or caused all of the cheques to be sent.

The first question is - have the Crown proved that the respondent either, sent any, or all, of the six cheques, or caused any, or all, of the six cheques to be sent to the Judges and CEO of the Supreme Court?

A number of affidavits were tendered before the Court deposing to the following facts;

· the receipt and collection of a number of envelopes with handwritten addresses, on 5 July 2012, by Greg Livingstone, the Building and Services assistant of the Supreme Court.[6]
[6]Affidavit of Greg Livingstone 24 July 2013

· The handing of those envelopes to Maria Vasilopoulos, the acting Chief Operating Officer of the Supreme Court, and stating his concern as to those envelopes[7].
[7]Affidavit of Greg Livingstone 24 July 2013

· The receipt by Maria Vasilopoulos of five envelopes addressed to David Ware, Chris Maxwell, Simon Whelan, Geoffrey Nettle and Emilios Kyrou. That she noted the names and addresses were on a typed sticker, with no addressee on the envelopes[8].
[8]Affidavit of Maria Vasilopoulos 24 July 2013

· That the letter addressed to David Ware, was opened by Maria Vasilopoulos who noted it contained a cheque only which she then placed back in the envelope and directed that the letters be distributed[9].
[9]Affidavit of Maria Vasilopoulos 24 July 2013

· That approximately one hour later she was advised by David Ware that he was unaware of whom the cheque was from, or the reasons for the cheque. As a result, she contacted Greg Livingstone and asked him to return the letters to her office, and he informed her that he had not distributed any at that stage[10].
[10]Affidavit of Maria Vasilopoulos 24 July 2013

· That another envelope had been located addressed to Marilyn Warren, which had been opened by the Chief Justices’ aide Josh Anderson[11].
[11]Affidavit of Maria Vasilopoulos 24 July 2013

· All of the letters were collected and after discussions involving a number of persons, including Chief Justice Warren, the matter was brought to the attention of the Victoria police and all of those envelopes were given to Senior Sergeant Frank Holzer at about 4.30pm on 5 July 2012.[12]
[12]Affidavit of Maria Vasilopoulos 24 July 2013, Affidavit of Franz Holzer 24 July 2013

· that the six cheques sent to the named persons were each contained within a separate envelope on which the addressee was the same as the nominated person on the cheque.

· the envelope contained nothing other than the cheque, that is no identifying feature of the sender, and no form of correspondence was contained within the envelope.

· On Friday 6 July 2012, the six envelopes containing the six cheques, each in the sum $5,000 was handed to Detective Andrew White from the Melbourne Criminal Investigation Unit.

None of those facts have been challenged or contradicted by other evidence.

Antonio Chessler swore an affidavit on 20 August 2013, he is an investigator at the Melbourne head office of the Westpac branch. He provided material from the bank in respect of each of the bank cheques that demonstrated they were drawn upon the Epping branch of the Westpac branch, which account belonged to Mr Lupco Slaveski and Ms Stojanka Slaveska.

Affidavit of Andrew White, Victoria Police

Andrew White, Detective Senior Constable with the Victoria Police produced

· the six original cheques and envelopes sent to the Supreme Court,

· the original bank statements from the Westpac Bank, and

· the data entries relating to various records of Westpac Bank containing entries relevant to six bank cheques obtained at the Epping Branch of the Westpac Bank from a joint account held by Slaveski and Mrs Stojanka Slaveska, the wife of Lupco Slaveski.

Detective Senior Constable Andrew White deposed to being on duty on 5 July 2012 when he spoke to Senior Sergeant Frank Holzer who had in his possession six bank cheques in six separate envelopes. He received those cheques on 6 July 2012 and lodged them in the property book at West Melbourne Police Station.

On 20 July 2012, he executed a search warrant on the Westpac Bank and received bank documents and CCTV footage, documents establishing that the six cheques had been withdrawn from the joint account referred to earlier held at the Westpac Bank branch in Epping in the name of Slaveski and his wife. Enquiries were made and Mr Slaveski was found subsequently to be out of the country.

Subsequently arrangements were made Detective Senior Constable Andrew White to speak to Mr Slaveski who attended on 5 September 2012 at the Melbourne Criminal Investigation Unit where he was interviewed in respect of the sending of these cheques to the Supreme Court. I have watched the DVD of that recording, together with a transcript that has been produced, and during that interview which was recorded under caution, Slaveski admitted to sending each of these cheques to the Supreme Court, and provided an explanation. Relevantly, what was said was:

Andrew White: Okay Mr Slaveski, on 5 July 2012, six envelopes were sent to the Melbourne Supreme Court at 210 William Street Melbourne. Inside those envelopes were six separate bank cheques.

Lupco Slaveski:        Yes, from my account, sir.
Andrew White:        They were from your account?
Lupco Slaveski:        Yes, because I told, I told employees a couple of employees of the Supreme Court …

Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        … because I was ordered — and, I repeat, ordered — by his Honour Justice Nettle and Ashley I believe, that my appeal be heard …
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        … and I was ordered to pay $30,000. So, when we sold the house, where the guy got murdered while in bed with a police woman, Charlie Attala …
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        … we sold the house and I went to the bank and the next day we went overseas. I said to the lady, I said make me cheques. She says to whom, I said make me five or six cheques comprising of $30,000. She goes okay.
Andrew White:        Do you remember who you addressed the cheques to?
Lupco Slaveski:        I think to some of the judges.
Andrew White:        Do you remember specifically who?
Lupco Slaveski:        Not really no.
Andrew White:        If I said to you David Ware, Marilyn Warren, Chris Maxwell, Geoffrey Nettle, Simon Whelan, Emilios Kyrou … Kyrou I don’t know how you pronounce that — would they — would they be the cheques?
Lupco Slaveski:        Yes.
Andrew White:        Were you…
Lupco Slaveski:        $30,000 totalling, yes.
Andrew White:        $5,000 each.
Lupco Slaveski:        $30,000.
Andrew White:        Yes total.
Lupco Slaveski:        That’s for my appeal. The judges want money, so they can hear my appeal.
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        I sent it to their ah work address.
Andrew White:        Okay.
Lupco Slaveski:        I put my …
Andrew White:        Do you remember where you got the cheques issued from, which bank you said it was a bank?
Lupco Slaveski:        Westpac, sir.
Andrew White:        Which branch?
Lupco Slaveski:        I think it was from Epping or Lalor, I think it was Epping. I told this, I, I told this the da …the day that I was making the cheques I think, I spoke to is it Luke Virgona, Luke Virgona, he is one of the Supreme Court Registrars. He works in the Supreme Court.
Andrew White:        He works in the Supreme Court does he?
Lupco Slaveski:        That’s correct. And I said can you tell me how much I owe the Supreme Court so I can make cheques so he went into the system, and he said you owe the bank … ah, you owe the Supreme Court $30,000. I said okay. Though I don’t trust the Registrar in the Supreme Court because the Registrar locked me up. He made up some tampered with video footages and all that and they locked me up for a couple of months. And they gave me different medication and they tried to poison me inside. This is my medication I have been taking for 12 years sir. And guess what they gave me different medication. No name brand and the ambulance picked me up a few times.
Andrew White:        Mr Slaveski can I just ask …
Lupco Slaveski:        Yes sir.
Andrew White:        … when you sent the cheques, did you send any other letter or any other written instruction with the cheque?
Lupco Slaveski:        No sir, just the cheques.
Andrew White:        Did you attach your name on the cheques?
Lupco Slaveski:        I wasn’t ah, we were just packing up, we sold the house. We were packing up all the things and I went to the bank.

An affidavit sworn by Luke Virgona on 20 August 2013 was tendered, and the contents of his affidavit is relevant to the issue of Mr Slaveski’s sending of the cheques to the Judges and CEO of the court. Mr Virgona was a senior registry officer at the Supreme Court of Victoria in the role of Case Management Team Leader in the Supreme Court Registry. He was also the Acting Self-Represented Litigant Coordinator in the absence of Shane Draper in June 2012. He recalled receiving a telephone call from Lupco Slaveski in June of 2012. He did not recall the exact date of the phone call. He knew it was Mr Slaveski calling because he had previously dealt with him on numerous occasions both in person and over the phone and he recognised him as the caller. Although he cannot recall precisely, he said it was his experience that when dealing with Mr Slaveski on the phone that he identifies himself at the outset of a phone call and he believed that that occurred in the conversation in June of 2012. He stated:

I do not recall the specific detail of the conversation, however, I do recall Mr Slaveski mentioning the payment of security of costs. I do not believe, however, that Mr Slaveski referred to an amount of security of costs. I have no recollection of Mr Slaveski saying anything about sending cheques to judges and believe if he had said something of that nature I would have remembered it. My conversation with Mr Slaveski lasted for around 20 minutes. I did not make any notes of that conversation.

Accordingly, on the basis of all of the material to which I have just referred, including the recorded admissions of the respondent, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, that Lupco Slaveski sent or caused to be sent six cheques each in the sum of $5000 to five separate judges of the Supreme Court and one to the CEO of the Supreme Court on or about 4 July 2012. It was conceded by the applicant that the Respondent did have to pay the sum of $30,000 security of costs for the prosecution of his appeal at that time. I am also satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a discussion about the payment of security of costs with Luke Virgona, but not a mention of sending cheques to Judges.

Evidence relating to charge 4

In relation to Charge 4, I have received an affidavit from Nicholas Day, Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator, dated 24 July 2013, which exhibits a statement he made on 3 January 2013; an affidavit of Graeme Spurr, dated 30 July 2013, which exhibits an email which he received from Daniel Coombes, who was then Associate to the Honourable Associate Justice Daly of the Supreme Court of Victoria, together with an attachment to that email. The email and the attachment to the email were produced and exhibited to the affidavit, and finally, an affidavit of Daniel Coombes sworn 14 August 2013. Mr Coombes, currently a barrister at the Tasmanian Bar, was formerly Associate to her Honour Associate Justice Daly of the Supreme Court of Victoria. His affidavit exhibited a statement he made to police on 11 September 2012.

Mr Coombs deposed to being aware of the identity of Mr Slaveski as a result of previous dealings with him at the Supreme Court on numerous occasions, including observing Mr Slaveski in court in person, and hearing him orally address the court, receiving phone calls from Mr Slaveski in which he identified himself as Mr Slaveski and discussed matters that were before the court and in which he was a party. Those matters included Slaveski and Ors v Austin Health, when Mr Coombs was Associate to Justice Dixon on 14 and 15 October 2010 and Slaveski v Rotstein Associates Pty Ltd as Associate to Associate Justice Daly on 14 November 2011. Mr Slaveski, he noticed had a distinctive accent, voice and manner of speaking which he recognised when he received a call from Mr Slaveski on 31 August 2012. Further, the person who made the call identified himself as being Mr Slaveski on that day.

He deposed that on Friday 31 August 2012 at approximately 4.10pm he was working as the Associate to Associate Justice Daly in his office when he received a phone call from a person who identified himself as Lupco Slaveski. When he took the phone call he took it on loud speaker and shortly after the conversation commenced he began taking notes of the conversation. When this conversation was occurring, Nick Day was in his office and could hear the conversation, as it was on loudspeaker. Daniel Coombes stated that the respondent began by asking that Associate Justice Daly fix the mess. Mr Coombes noted during the conversation the following statements:

Associate Justice Daly is personally responsible for the bankruptcy notice I received.
I will come to the court with guns and my own security.
Associate Justice Daly needs to fix the fucking problem.
The money will come out of her house.
She made the mess she will need to fix it.
She is not a judge she is just an assistant.
I will come after her sue her and put a caveat on her property.
She is now on my bad side.
If cops threaten me with a .38 calibre it’s going to go one way or the other.
I told President Maxwell to meet me at the cemetery with the Acting DPP.
We will have a shoot-out at the cemetery —I don’t give a fuck.
The Supreme Court is corrupt.
I am a good man but I can turn.
I have taken on the cops for 15 years. They don’t have the balls to take me on.

The phone call took approximately 15 minutes. Mr Coombes typed his handwritten notes into a Word document which he attached to an email and forwarded to Graeme Spurr and Senior Sergeant Malcolm McDonagh. On 4 September 2012, Detective Senior Constable White attended at his office and took possession of the notes that he had made at the time. He stated that he was concerned at the time of the phone call for the safety of Associate Justice Daly, as he considered the statements being made by Slaveski to be threats.

Mr Nicholas Day in his affidavit stated that his office is across the hall from Mr Coombes and that it is not unusual to hear conversations from other offices, but they are not matters of which he normally takes any particular note. He stated that on Friday 31 August he overheard a particular telephone conversation between Daniel Coombes and another person. He did not know who that person was at the time. It was the extremely aggravated tone of the person on the other end of the line and the excessive swearing that had directed his attention to the call. He heard the person on the other end say: “I hold the judge fucking responsible” and it was that statement that made him go into Mr Coombe’s office and indicate to Mr Coombes that he should be making notes of the conversation, which he did until the conclusion of the conversation. He was present for the entire time after he heard the initial conversation, and the call was on loudspeaker. The person on the other end of the line continued to, in his words, “rant and swear” and it was the combination of that together with the demeaning references to Associate Justice Daly and the threat that he would bring guns to court that gave him great concern.

Police Interview of 5 September 2012

The respondent Slaveski was asked questions about this telephone call during the interview he had with Detective Senior Constable White on Wednesday 5 September 2012 at Broadmeadows Police Station. The relevant parts of the record of interview with Slaveski conducted under caution are:

Andrew White:        Okay Mr Slaveski can I ask you do you in particular remember ringing Daniel Coombes?
Lupco Slaveski:        I possibly could have, sir I have spoken to a few people.
Andrew White:        Just to jog your memory and help you out a bit, he was a judge’s associate for ah, sorry, an associate for your Honourable Associate Justice Daly.
Lupco Slaveski:        Ah, yes I could have spoken to him yes.
Andrew White:        Do you remember as best you can recall how that conversation went?
Lupco Slaveski:        I said to him I don’t want to come to the Supreme Court anymore. This is a set up. Associate Justice Daly was part of the conspiracy and she set me up when I went to have ah… meeting with the CEO of the Supreme Court Mr David Ware — I think I faxed you that document, am I right?
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        And ah, the meeting with Mr David Ware was at 11 o’clock am I right Snezana?
Snezana Slaveska:     That’s correct.
Lupco Slaveski:        10.30/11am and the judgment or the ruling was at 1 o’clock with um on 1 o’clock or 2 o’clock with Associate Justice Daly and I said, why you people setting me up? And they want to send me bankrupt so I don’t sue these people for the threat that they said we gonna shoot or Slaveski needs a .38 calibre. I said I have every right as I have Victoria Police ah, headed by Mr Trevor Lockwood investigating me ah ...38 calibre plot on me.
Andrew White:        Alright Mr Slaveski I am trying to get you to narrow down particularly to the phone call you had with Daniel Coombes. Can you remember any conversation that you had with him?
Lupco Slaveski:        Hmm, not specifically no.
Andrew White:        If you like Mr Slaveski I have a statement that Daniel Coombes has made and he has also made notes. He says he’s made notes when the phone call was taking place. In fairness to you I can read out this… sorry in fairness to you I can read these out, these notes you…
Lupco Slaveski:        You can read them sir.
Andrew White:        Are you happy to hear them.
Lupco Slaveski:        That’s … that’s fine it’s, it’s, it’s his story you know.
Andrew White:        Alright. This is what he said was the phone conversation he had with you. He said that you said to him, and these are all written as direct quotes. “Associate Justice Daly is personally responsible for the bankruptcy note I received I will come to Court with guns and my own security”.
Lupco Slaveski:        That’s not true sir.
Andrew White:        Okay. “Associate Justice Daly needs to fix the (excuse the language) fucking problem the money will come out of her house … she made a mess she’ll need to fix it … she’s not a judge she’s just an assistant … I will come after her, sue her, and put a caveat on her property … she is now on my bad side … the cops threaten me with a .38 calibre it’s going to go one way or the other … I told President Maxwell to meet me at the cemetery with the acting DPP”.
Lupco Slaveski:        Sorry?
Andrew White:        “I told President Maxwell to meet me at the cemetery with the acting DPP we will have a shootout at the cemetery I don’t give a fuck … the Supreme Court is corrupt I am a good man but I can turn … I have taken on the cops for 15 years they don’t have the balls to take me on”.
He said he wrote those quotes down as he heard them over the phone.

Lupco Slaveski:        That’s not true sir.
Andrew White:        Okay.
Lupco Slaveski:        Some words that are quotes there are not very … are not true, but I did say to the President, with respect to the President Mr Maxwell.
Andrew White:        and this is to Daniel Coombes you said this to?
Lupco Slaveski:        No sir.
Andrew White:        Can we just keep …
Lupco Slaveski:        Yeah, but just a minute let me just answer to what he said.
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski;        I did mention that his Honour Justice Maxwell I never said … I have so much respect towards Mr Maxwell because this is what he said. On the 25^th of,… 29^th March
“Dear Mr Slaveski, my attention has been drawn to some video footage on setting up of the Court room of the hearing of the appeal. Making the footage appears the record one of the record …. the Court official makes a wholly inappropriate remark, apparently in reference to you. This is most regrettable”.
This is a letter, sir that I sent to you, sir and I also gave a letter to the Senior Sergeant, he’s one of the inspectors here at Broadmeadows, and I have so much respect towards his Honour, and therefore …

Andrew White:        I did see a copy of that letter you did fax it to me.
Lupco Slaveski:        and his Honour, Justice Maxwell said to me, Mr Slaveski please remove the video footage and sir I did remove the video footage because I respect his Honour Justice Maxwell.
Andrew White:        Before we get on to the video footage, and I am happy to have a look at it and hear about that, I’m going to ask you again if you recall any direct conversation you had with Daniel Coombes, the Associate to Daly.
Lupco Slaveski:        None of those words … I said.
Andrew White:        Nothing at all?
Lupco Slaveski:        Ah words but none of those words, the way he is twisting the words. I said, they wanna kill me with a .38 calibre and it says on the video. Is that a fair call, sir it’s on the video. They are threatening to kill me I never said those words.
Andrew White:        In particular about going to the cemetery? I’ll read it again.
Lupco Slaveski:        no sir, that’s not true.
Andrew White:        “I told President Maxwell to meet me at the cemetery with the acting DPP”?
Lupco Slaveski:        No sir.
Andrew White:        “We will have a shootout at the cemetery, I don’t give a fuck”. Didn’t say that?
Lupco Slaveski:        No sir.
Andrew White:        Didn’t say that?
Lupco Slaveski:        No sir.
Andrew White:        Alright.
Lupco Slaveski:        I use few words about the DPP acting director — he’s so corrupted. He was one of them … you’ll see him on the … you’ll see him on the video footage. He’s here, talking about the .38 calibre with these people. But I have so much respect towards the President Mr Maxwell.
Andrew White:        Another conversation was had, before you play that, sorry…
Lupco Slaveski:        See… here that’s the DPP acting director, here this corrupted man. Is he corrupted? Yes, I told him I told his Honour President Maxwell when we had four hours hearing. You remember when we told you about that sir?
Andrew White:        Yes.
Lupco Slaveski:        And he … his Honour President Maxwell allowed me … Mr White allowed me to have a four hour conference. So how can I disrespect that. I will never, ever disrespect that, cos he gave me the opportunity as I was asking and my letter states here, if I can just refer you sir, my letter states here his Honour President Maxwell allowed me, can you recall that, to have the hearing, so why couldn’t you people have the hearing so I’m not contradicting myself I have so much respect towards the President. So these people are mixing the words.

I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, that the conversation between Daniel Coombes and the Respondent took place on Friday 31 August 2012 at approximately 4.10pm, that the conversation was on loudspeaker in the office of Mr Coombes, that the conversation was overheard by Nicholas Day, and that the notes that were taken by Daniel Coombes, whilst not a complete record of the whole conversation, are an accurate of some of the words and statements made by the respondent on that day. I do not accept the statements made by the respondent in his record of interview that he made no such statements, and that it is just people mixing up his words. The language and the subjects to which he refers, including the 38 calibre, the corrupt DPP, the courts want to kill him, are all consistent themes that appear throughout his correspondence with the court, particularly in the recurring subsequent emails to various judicial officers and their associates.

Evidence relating to charge 5

The evidence comprises an affidavit of Paul Godfrey, a court officer at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court, sworn 13 September 2013. He deposed to his role as a court officer which included activating the court’s recording system at the commencement of each hearing to record audio of that hearing. It is the Genette Digital Recorder Program. He swore that on 19 August 2013, he was the court officer assisting Chief Magistrate Lauritsen in Court 28 at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. Prior to the commencement of that hearing, he opened the Genette program input the case details for the list and at some point between 10am and 10.30am he called the proceeding of Lupco Slaveski v Rotstein & Associates Ltd, being proceeding No. W02189172. Prior to calling the proceeding he selected that particular case from the Genette program, clicked the button “begin recording” and was present in court for the duration of the Slaveski hearing. He witnessed Mr Slaveski’s conduct in the courtroom together with his dialogue with Chief Magistrate Lauritsen, and he said that Mr Slaveski addressed the Chief Magistrate in an aggressive tone and a belligerent manner. He recalled specifically hearing words uttered by Mr Slaveski to the effect of “if you come after my property, I’ll come after yours”. The impression he had listening to the tone, conduct and demeanour of Mr Slaveski was that he was threatening towards Chief Magistrate Lauritsen.

He deposed that protective services officers had been organised prior to the hearing and were on standby outside the court. Within approximately one minute of the hearing commencing, the PSOs entered the court at the same time he had activated the duress button of his own volition due to the threatening nature of the words and conduct of Mr Slaveski. At the conclusion of the hearing before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen, he stopped the recording. He has listened to the recording and deposed that it accorded with his recollection of the hearing. A transcript of that hearing was exhibited to the affidavit of Mr Godfrey.

The transcript of that conversation makes it clear that the matter was listed in front of Chief Magistrate Lauritsen by error and he was attempting to send Mr Slaveski to courtroom 23 where he was part-heard in front of another magistrate. As he attempted to send him to the correct courtroom, this conversation occured;

Slaveski : ‘yeah, now you have been subpoenaed by me to come to the Supreme Court with your colleague, Mr… the Attorney-General Robert Clark, that stupid man called a corrupted copper Andrew White to lock me up, so I said to Andrew White, …..let me finish please…..

Lauritsen M: Mr Slaveski I won’t have you abusing people in my court.

Slaveski : well he’s an idiot that man,

The Chief Magistrate was still trying to have the matter removed to court 23 when he stated;

Slaveski ‘I’ll go, I’ll go now, no problem, but I want let you know, look you in the face, and let you know, you play with my property, I’ll take your property off you’.

Lauritsen M:            Mr Slaveski if you are going to threaten me I’ll have you removed forcibly from the court. If you go down …
Slaveski:Do you want to do that.
Lauritsen M:            Go down to Court 23…
Slaveski:You, you have … shut the … you shut … $5,000, you have seen the documents.
Lauritsen M:            Mr Slaveski …
Slaveski:Yeah.
Lauritsen M:            Go down to Court 23 now.
Slaveski:$5,000, $5,000 you have seen the documents where, where I have signed a contract with my former …
Lauritsen M:            Mr Slaveski …
Slaveski:Yeah.
Lauritsen M:            This matter is in Court 23, if you would go down there now.
Slaveski:Good. I am telling you back off my cases …
Lauritsen M:            Mr Slaveski if you don’t remove …
Slaveski:I am not asking you I am …
Lauritsen M:            If you don’t go now I will have you removed.
Slaveski:I am telling you to back off my cases. You come after my house, I come after your house. Gentlemen stay away from me. Just stay away from me. If they go outside and I get whatever you guys have got I don’t give an F. Ok you play with my property, I go over your property. I don’t give an F anymore about nobody. And your colleagues, President Maxwell’s assistant tell him to be careful how he threatens me with a .38 calibre. That’s on the internet now. You people mean nothing to me anymore. Ok you have to know that. I have been to jail many times. You don’t threaten me anymore. Stay away from my children, don’t lock up my children anymore, don’t touch my children. These people are nothing to me, ok, and I saw you once outside, stay away from my property. Stay away from my property.

There was an affidavit also from Georgia Mills dated 13 September 2013 a judicial support officer at the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court who deposed that on 13 September 2013 she accessed the Genette program, entered the proceeding No. W02189172, selected the hearing which occurred before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen on 19 August 2013 and downloaded the material onto a CD Rom file which produced an audio of the proceedings. She has listened to that audio and deposed that it was an accurate recording of what was stored on the Genette program. That was exhibited and is the recording of the conversation to which I have referred.

I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent made the statements outlined above, on that day to Chief Magistrate Lauritson. The evidence is the primary evidence of a recording, it is not disputed, and the person speaking is identified by a court officer as the respondent.

Evidence relating to charge 6

The evidence relating to Charges 6 and 7, are contained predominately in the affidavit of Stephen Joseph Lee sworn 25 November 2013. Mr Lee is an Assistant Victorian Government Solicitor in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution section of the office and is one of the solicitors responsible for the care and conduct of this proceeding on behalf of The Queen. His name appears as the solicitor responsible for the proceeding on the amended originating motion, summons and a number of supporting affidavits. He deposed that he was aware that the respondent attended a hearing on 16 September 2013 in the proceeding No. SCI 2012 05803 before Williams J, the vexatious litigant hearing. Subsequent to the hearing on 16 September 2013, Mr Lee received three emails from the address: [email protected]. The first dated 20 September 2013 at 4.27pm, the second 23 September 2013 at 3.20pm and the final email 25 September 2013 at 2pm. Copies of those emails were exhibited.

The circumstances that have occurred in this case in relation to these three charges is that the respondent, I am satisfied, obtained six cheques in a total sum of $30,000. The six cheques were in the names of five judges and the CEO of the Supreme Court, either he or someone acting on his behalf placed the cheques into their respective envelopes and mailed then to the court. They contained nothing to identify them as coming from the respondent, they contained no threat, no demand, no request.

I am also satisfied that the respondent was due, at around that time to pay the sum of $30,000 to the Supreme Court as security for costs for the purpose of enabling him to pursue his litigation. The respondent stated, in his record of interview, that he was paying the $30,000 to the Supreme Court in this fashion because he did not trust anyone but the judges. I do not accept that as a reasonable explanation as to why the cheques were made out to the judges and the CEO of the Supreme Court.

The respondent submitted that, as at the date the cheque was sent being 4 July 2012, there was a matter involving the respondent which was part-heard before President Maxwell, and other matters were then pending in the Supreme Court and/or the Court of Appeal. None of those other matters were allocated at the time of the sending of the cheques, but it was submitted there was a potential that one of those matters involving the respondent could in the future come before one of the nominated judges, Chief Justice Warren, Appeal Justices Nettle, Whelan and Justice Kyrou to whom the cheques had been sent.

It was further submitted that the relevant tendency of the conduct of the respondent in sending the six cheques is to be assessed at the time they were sent to the named recipients and as a result I should ignore the respondent’s subsequent assertions that the six cheques were sent in compliance with the orders that he pay for security for costs in that same sum. That misunderstands the nature and use that can be made of a record of interview, which is that allegations are put to the respondent and an explanation is sought and in this case given. It is an out of court statement in which admissions against interest by the respondent are permitted to be placed before the court, in this case his admissions that he sent the six cheques, and includes any material relevant to those admissions.

The explanation provided by the respondent demonstrated that at the time of the sending of these cheques, the amount of $30,000 was in fact due on or around the date on which the cheques were sent and received. As indicated earlier, the applicant conceded that the amount of $30,000 was due to be paid to enable the respondent to pursue his appeal.

It was further submitted that the respondent’s explanation for sending the cheques was not plausible in that there was nothing in the envelopes to identify the cheques as being from the respondent or that they were to satisfy any order for security of costs and that the cheques were bank cheques and did not contain any reference to the account from which they had been issued.

The applicant relied upon the evidence of Luke Virgona, an employee of the Supreme Court, who said that he did not recall a conversation with the respondent in which the respondent claimed to have told Mr Virgona he had paid the security for costs by sending cheques to the Judges. Whilst Mr Virgona believes that he would recall such a conversation, he conceded in his affidavit that he had a conversation with the respondent which occupied some 20 minutes but he was unable to particularly recall the content of that conversation.

Further reliance was placed upon the fact that none of the six envelopes which contained a bank cheque contained any reference to the fact that there were five other similar cheques contained in envelopes which had been delivered to the court. It was also submitted that the natural probable interpretation of a judge or senior court employee receiving a bank cheque for $5,000 without any explanation, is that such conduct is an invitation to enter into improper and/or corrupt conduct.

First, the onus to prove the offence lies upon the applicant, it does not lie upon the respondent. The respondent does not have to prove that he sent the six cheques for the purpose that he maintained in his record of interview. It is the applicant who must prove that he didn’t and he must prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. Whilst I am satisfied that Mr Slaveski has sent those cheques to each of the individuals named in them, I am not satisfied that he did so either for the purpose of interfering with the course of justice, or despite that lack of intent, that there was a tendency as a result of the sending of those cheques to interfere with the administration of justice. In all of the cases given as examples of private communications, there has been something that identifies the person who made the demand, threat, or inducement, or at the very least, there has been a request, a demand or an inducement to do something that would interfere with the administration of justice in its proper course, such as not hearing a matter or altering the decision about to be made or similar.

In this matter there has been no such demand, request or reference at the time of the sending of the cheques. Whilst each person who opened the cheque may well have been puzzled, curious or even disturbed by receiving a bank cheque in the sum of $5,000 at that point there was nothing that could or would have interfered with the administration of justice.

From my dealings with Mr Slaveski to date, I have no doubt that what he did was done to annoy, aggravate and cause as much trouble and inconvenience to the court as he could possibly arrange or organise. As can be seen from the charges that follow, he is not reticent in his dealings with the court, he is not reluctant to threaten or make demands of judicial officers, their staff or their lawyers, but no such thing occurred in respect of these cheques. It was only after an investigation, not a difficult investigation, but still an investigation that the court was able to ascertain the identity of the person responsible for the provision of the cheques. The fact that the respondent had a pending matter before Maxwell P does not alter the situation, that there were no demands, threats or anything else connecting the respondent to the cheques at the time they were received.

The argument was that by reason of the sending of the cheques to both the judges and the CEO it was intended to or had a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice in that, first, it was an invitation to either judicial officers or a senior employee of the Supreme Court to engage in improper and/or corrupt conduct. Secondly, that that invitation created a circumstance which required the court to take positive steps to remove any apprehension of impropriety and/or corruption and that that invitation had a real risk of tarnishing the reputation of the court or, alternatively, that invitation was disruptive of the court’s administrative processes and was an interference with the usual processes of allocation of judges to future cases involving the respondent in that it enlivened the issue of recusal in such cases. That situation arose only after the cheques had been received and the identity of Mr Slaveski ascertained by Detective Senior Constable Andrew White, which on the material before me seems to me at some later stage in July.

Whilst I accept that the sending of the cheques was disruptive of the court’s administrative processes that in my view is insufficient to constitute a contempt of court by itself. There are many things that occur that are disruptive of the court’s administrative processes but nothing in the content of the cheque in the envelope was an invitation to engage in improper and or corrupt conduct. As indicated earlier, there was no demand, no request for something to be done, no request for something to be not done, nothing that could seriously constitute an invitation and, as a result, there was no real risk of tarnishing the reputation of the court and, in my view, the use of contempt proceedings to deal with someone who was disruptive of the courts administrative processes would be beyond the scope of the normal use of contempt of a court. A contempt is a very serious matter, it is a finding and judgment that is not made lightly. The fact that inconvenience to the administrative processes to the court has occurred as a result of cheques being sent in this manner is not sufficient to meet the requirements of having a tendency to interfere with the administration of justice.

Accordingly, in respect of the first three charges relating to the supply of the six cheques in the sum of $5,000 each to the justices and the CEO of the Supreme Court, I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant has made out his case and, accordingly, I make no declaration of contempt in respect of those three charges.

Charge 4

In relation to charge 4, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the applicant has proved that the respondent has committed a contempt of the court in that he has made threatening statements in the telephone call to Daniel Coombes which had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice in that they had a real, and not remote, tendency to intimidate a judicial officer in connection with the performance of her duties, a tendency to dissuade a judicial officer from continuing to perform her duties in connection with proceedings involving the respondent, had a tendency to place improper pressure on a judicial officer in the performance of her duties and had a tendency to punish a judicial officer for decisions or findings made by her which were adverse to the respondent. These words were deliberate and carefully chosen words intended to instil fear into the judicial officer at which they were directed and to cause that judicial officer to be hesitant and fearful of carrying out their duty as a judicial officer particularly in respect of the potential of making adverse findings against the respondent.

I further find that the respondent intended to interfere with the due administration of justice by uttering the words on that day.

Charge 5

In relation to Charge 5, being the respondents appearance before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen, I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the elements of the offence of contempt have been proven and I make the declaration sought. The manner and tone of the comments made to the Chief Magistrate were menacing and said in an extremely aggressive tone, they showed disrespect to the magistrate, to the court, they were threatening towards the magistrate on a personal level, including comments such as “ok you play with my property, I go over your property” and “I am not asking you, I am telling you to back off my cases” and “you come after my house, I come after your house”.

The conduct of the respondent had a clear tendency to interfere with and obstruct the due administration of justice. He challenged the authority of the court, he threatened the magistrate to “back off” hearing any case connected with him and I find that he uttered the words in the recording with the intention to interfere with the due administration of justice, by interrupting the proceeding, challenging the authority of the learned magistrate and the court, and preventing the learned magistrate from hearing his case.

Charge 6

In respect of Charge 6, being an email sent to Stephen Lee, solicitor at the Victorian Government Solicitors Office, on 5 October 2013 at 6.11am, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the email sent to Stephen Lee had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice. The email was calculated to place improper pressure on Stephen Lee in his capacity as the solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant in these proceedings. The language used in the emails constituted threats to Stephen Lee, if he persisted with the application for contempt charges against the respondent and, thus those threats were made to him, in his capacity as a legal representative of a party to the proceedings. The language was abusive and not language that should be accepted as legitimate correspondence to a person acitng as legal representative of one of a party to litigation, the threats forming just part of an email that was intimidatory in its totality — comments such as “you know where I live, I know where you live” can only be viewed as attempts at intimidation.

I have considered whether the respondent intend to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice and I find in these circumstances that he did. The sending of the email to Stephen Lee was a conscious, voluntary and willed act. It was sent in Stephen Lee’s capacity as the solicitor for the applicant and, in my view, the respondent intended to challenge the decision to initiate the proceedings and to threaten Stephen Lee in the hope that the proceedings may not continue.

Charge 7

In relation to Charge 7, a further email to Stephen Lee of 7 October 2013 at 6.20pm, I find that the sending of the email and its contents to Stephen Lee do in fact constitute the offence of contempt, and I make the declaration sought. Stephen Lee was on that occasion the solicitor acting on behalf of the applicant, a party to these proceedings. I am satisfied that the contents of that email had a tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice. The contents of that email contained threats to the wife of Stephen Lee, specifically threats of sexual assault. It was abusive and contained clear indications of threats of violence, all of which were directed towards convincing Stephen Lee to not proceed with the contempt that had already been instituted. It constituted undue pressure in his capacity as a legal representative of a party to the proceedings.

As to his intention, I find that Mr Slaveski intended to be abusive, threatening, and intended to threaten Stephen Lee’s wife for the purpose of interfering with the proceedings, that is, in to attempt to have the proceedings stopped.

Charge 8

Charge 8, relates to an email sent by the respondent on 15 September 2013 at 5.11pm to Kayla Martin, Associate to Justice Williams, amongst other persons, containing a request that the email be passed to Justice Williams, together with an attachment I find that the sending of the email and its contents to Kayla Martin and others does constitute the offence of contempt, and I make the declaration sought in relation to charge 8. The contents of the email sent by the respondent include threats of violence to members of the staff of the Supreme Court, including words such as “you/s come after me = I come after you!”, demands that the court pay him money to prevent him coming to court, and abusive language including statements such as “I do NOT give a FUCK any more about ALL you people”. Justice Williams was due to hear the vexatious litigant application the following day after this email, and the email, contained clear and unambiguous threats that if people proceeded with this action in this court he would come after them. The email was calculated to place pressure on Williams J in her capacity as a judge hearing the vexatious litigant application and to intimidate and improperly attempt to influence her decision. The writing of the email was an intentional, deliberate and willed act which was sent to the Associate of the Judge with a specific request that the email be brought to her attention indicating he was aware of her status of the judge of the court.

I am satisfied that at the time the respondent sent the email his purpose was to interfere with the due administration of justice by making threats of violence to employees of the court and attempting to intimidate and influence the trial judge, together with unwarranted demands for payments of significant sums of money.

Charge 9

Charge 9 relates to an email sent to Viv Macgillivray, Executive Associate to her Honour Warren CJ, together with other associates of the court on 5 February 2014 at 10.59am. I find that the sending of the email and its contents to Viv Macgillivray and others does constitute the offence of contempt, and I make the declaration sought in relation to Charge 9. The email contains threats of significant violence towards Justice Whelan who had previously dealt with the respondent on a prior matter of contempt. There are threats generally against the Supreme Court judges, including threats to kill them. It includes threats that if any of the judges leave Australia and travel on holidays he will find that judge wherever they may be in the world and kill them. These are clear attempts to intimidate and interfere with judicial officers in the performance of their duty, threats to punish judicial officers including Justice Whelan and Chief Justice Warren for previous decisions or findings adverse to the respondent. The email is offensive, abusive and undermining to the authority of the court. That conduct had a clear tendency to interfere with and obstruct the due administration of justice. The allegations were made that the court and the judges were corrupt. The respondent was attempting to interfere with the court’s proceedings by having the proceedings terminated via the content of this email.

As to his intentions, I find that he intended to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice, by being abusive, alleging that all of the judges were corrupt and that they have given orders to kill him, that he was wrongly imprisoned and that he would use a violent form of pay-back against those judges responsible for imprisoning him and for making adverse findings against him in other matters.

Charge 10

As to Charge 10, which relates to an email sent to the Supreme Court on 5 February 2014 to Viv Macgillivray, Executive Associate to Justice Warren CJ, and associates of other judges, I am satisfied that the contents of that email constitute a charge of contempt, and I make the declaration sought in respect of Charge 10.

The contents of the email contain clear threats directed to all judges who have been hearing any of the litigation involving the respondent in the past 15 years. The threats also relate to lawyers acting on behalf of parties, police officers involved in any of the litigation and any public servants, being necessarily the associate and staff of the Supreme Court. The email is very clear attempt to interfere with judicial officers in the performance of their duties and an attempt to intimidate the judicial officers as well as the legal representatives of the parties. The email had a tendency to influence, improperly pressure, attempt to dissuade and punish judges for conducting their duties according to their oath of office.

In relation to the intention of the respondent, I find that the respondent specifically intended to interfere with or obstruct the due administration of justice at the time that he sent this email. It was a conscious, voluntary and willed act. It can be seen by the words used that he intended to be abusive, threatening and intimidating towards the judges, lawyers, public servants and police involved in his litigation, in the past, present and future.

Charge 11

Charge 11 relates to an email sent to Kayla Martin, Associate to Williams J, and associates of other judges of this court at 4.30pm on 25 February 2014, shortly after her Honour had handed down judgment in the vexatious litigant proceedings. I am satisfied that the contents of that email constitute a contempt of court and I will make the declaration sought in relation to Charge 11. Attached to the email was a photograph of the respondent with a bare chest and in underwear with the title of “my sexy body.jpg”. The email has a tendency to interfere with and/or obstruct the due administration of justice in that it contains abusive language directed towards the judge hearing his litigation, threats of sexual violence by the respondent upon that judge, together with allegations of corruption, which have a tendency or were intended to threaten, intimidate, place improper pressure or improperly influence a judicial officer in the performance of her duties. It also demonstrates an intent to punish a judicial officer for findings or decisions made by that judge, as well as being personally offensive to that judge.

As to the intent of the respondent, I find that the sending of the email and attached photos together with the choice of words was a conscious, voluntary and willed act, that he intended to be offensive, abusive, intimidatory, threatening, all done with the intention of challenging the authority of the court and the judge in an attempt to dissuade the judge or judges from performing their duties in respect of litigation involving him, both currently and in the future.

Charge 12

Charge 12, relates to an email sent to the Supreme Court on 11 March 2014 to Kayla Martin, Associate to Williams J, and associates of other judges of this court. I am satisfied that the contents of that email constitute a contempt of the court. Attached to the email was a photograph of male genitalia and a photograph of the back of the respondent’s head with attached needles which had previously been sent to the court. The email has a tendency to interfere with and/or obstruct the due administration of justice, it contained threats to kill every person involved in his litigation, to commit sexual violence upon any female judge of this court and intimidatory and abusive comments relating to judges who have in the past determined litigation involving the respondent, together with the offensive photograph of male genitalia. The email seeks to place in fear those judges who have made adverse decisions or findings against the respondent. There are threats directed towards the Attorney-General, police and all persons involved in his litigation. I am satisfied that the words used may have a tendency to place improper pressure or influence on a judge or judges who are attempting or may be attempting to perform their duties. The offensive nature of his comments are such that they have a tendency to undermine the authority of the court and the judges of the court.

As to his intention, I find that the choosing of the words and the sending of the email was a conscious, voluntary and willed act on the part of the respondent and that at the time he sent the email he intended to be abusive, threatening, intimidatory to judges, public servants who work within the courts and the police involved in his matters for the purpose of attempting to dissuade, improperly influence or place pressure upon those judges, their staff and the police. His personal and offensive comments about judicial officers and what he wished to do to them were designed to interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice in that he wished to undermine the authority of both the court and the judges.

Accordingly, I will make nine declarations that the respondent is in contempt of the Supreme Court relating to charges 4 – 12, inclusive.

The photos exhibited to the affidavits and referred to in this judgment will be attached as annexures to this judgment.

---

[2015] VSC 400

12 August 2015