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),…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slaveski came before the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent, Slaveski, was charged with contempt of court. The alleged contempt involved the sending of six bank cheques to judges, the CEO of the court, and other court personnel, without any identification of the sender. The cheques did not contain any threats, demands, or abusive language. The court had to decide whether the act of sending these cheques constituted contempt, considering the absence of explicit threats, demands, or abuse.

The legal issues before the court were whether the act of sending the cheques amounted to contempt, specifically if it could be considered an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice, an improper pressure on a party, or threats of violence intended to intimidate or influence the judges. The court had to assess if the act, despite the absence of explicit threats or abuse, had the tendency to undermine the authority of the court or improperly influence its decision-making process.

The court found that the act of sending the cheques was not, in itself, contempt of court, given the absence of explicit threats, demands, or abuse. However, the court considered the broader context, including the history of threats of violence against the judges, staff, and legal practitioners, as well as the allegations of impropriety and corruption intended to intimidate and improperly influence the judges. The court concluded that these additional factors, combined with the cheques, did amount to contempt of court. The cheques, when viewed in the context of the broader campaign of threats and allegations, were found to have the tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice and improperly influence the court’s decision-making process.

The final orders of the court reflected the conclusion that the combined actions of sending the cheques and making threats of violence, along with the allegations of impropriety and corruption, constituted contempt of court. The respondent was found guilty of contempt and subject to the appropriate penalties.

Continue reading R v Slaveski

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established