Legal Research
Cases
R v Slaveski

R v Slaveski

Case [2012] VSC 7 20 January 2012

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2011 04689

THE QUEEN	Applicant
V
LUPCO SLAVESKI	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	29- 30 November, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 December 2011, 17 January 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 January 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Slaveski (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 7

---

CONTEMPT – Sentence – Serious abusive behaviour in Court – Allegations of impropriety and corruption made against the Court and the presiding judge – Threat to the presiding judge – Psychiatric condition – Committed to prison for 2 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Langmead SC with Ms F Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office
For the Respondent	Mr W Alstergren with Ms M Ball, until 1 December 2011. Thereafter, in person.	Tait Lawyers until 1 December 2011.

HIS HONOUR:

Lupco Slaveski, on 13 December 2011, after an eight day trial, I found you guilty of contempt of Court.[1]
[1][2011] VSC 643. This sentence should be read with the findings and other matters set out in that judgment.

There is no maximum penalty for contempt of court.

I proceed on the basis that I have the power (amongst other things) to imprison, to fine, to order payment of costs, and to order imprisonment in default of payment of either a fine or costs.[2] I also proceed on the basis that I have power to suspend or partially suspend an order for committal to prison;[3] and having regard to the specific matters which the authorities indicate are relevant to punishment for contempt of court.[4]
[2]Pattison v Bell [2007] FCA 137 at [45], and Pico Holdings Inc v Voss [2002] VSC 319 at [93]-[95].
[3]Provisions governing the suspension or partial suspension of terms of imprisonment are contained in Subdivision (3) of Division 2 of Part 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991. The issue of the extent to which the Sentencing Act 1991 provisions apply when punishing for contempt was dealt with by Kyrou J in R v Herald & Weekly Times Pty Ltd [2008] VSC 251, [42]-[51], and in the authorities cited in that judgment. Before me the prosecutor submitted there was a power to suspend and to partially suspend an order for committal to prison, relying on those authorities and upon Rule 75.11(4). No contrary submission was put. I proceed on that basis.
[4]DPP v Johnson & Ors [2002] VSC 583 at [59]; Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183, 185. So far as possible the Court should approach the issue of disposition after a finding of contempt in a way consistent with the approach adopted when dealing with criminal conduct generally: Varnavides v VCAT (2005) 12 VR 1, 6.

The contempt of which you have been found guilty occurred on 2 June 2010. It occurred towards the end of a very long civil trial in which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Slaveski

Details

AGLC: R v Slaveski (Sentence) [2012] VSC 7
Case: [2012] VSC 7
Decision Date: 20 January 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Slaveski involved a defendant who was subject to serious allegations of contempt of court. The defendant's conduct during his trial and sentencing hearing included making highly abusive and derogatory remarks towards the court and the judge. This behaviour escalated to threats against the judge, culminating in the defendant declaring that the judge would be shot if he was imprisoned. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had to determine an appropriate sentence for these contemptuous acts.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate punishment for the defendant's contemptuous behaviour, which was deemed to have seriously undermined the authority and dignity of the court. The court had to consider the gravity of the contempt, the defendant's psychiatric condition, and the need to balance punitive measures against rehabilitative outcomes. The court also needed to address the impact of the defendant's threats on the safety of the judge and the administration of justice.

In delivering the sentence, the court emphasised the seriousness of the defendant's conduct, which it found to be premeditated and malicious. Despite the defendant's psychiatric condition, the court determined that imprisonment was necessary to uphold the integrity of the judicial system and to protect the judge from the defendant's threats. The court sentenced the defendant to two months in prison, considering the need for deterrence and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The court did not consider a fine or community service to be sufficient given the nature and impact of the contempt.

The Supreme Court of Queensland ordered the defendant to be committed to prison for two months, reflecting the gravity of his contemptuous conduct and its detrimental impact on the judicial process. This sentence was intended to serve both as a punishment and a deterrent, ensuring the maintenance of respect for the court and its officials.

Orders