Legal Research
Cases
R v Slaveski

R v Slaveski

Case [2011] VSC 643 13 December 2011

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

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
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 December 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Slaveski (contempt)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 643

---

CONTEMPT – Abusive behaviour in Court – Allegations of impropriety and corruption – Threat to presiding judge – Contempt found proven.

---

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:

On 5 December 2006 Mr Lupco Slaveski commenced a proceeding in this Court against the State of Victoria and 23 present or former police officers seeking damages for assault and battery, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, defamation, trespass, conversion, detinue and negligence.

The trial of the proceeding was heard in this Court before Kyrou J. It began on 3 August 2009 and it ended on 18 August 2010. There were 115 sitting days. Judgment was delivered on 1 October 2010.[1] Mr Slaveski made claims in relation to 13 alleged incidents. All his claims were dismissed in relation to 12 of those incidents. Claims of trespass succeeded in relation to one incident.
[1][2010] VSC 441.

As a result of concerns that Kyrou J had in relation to Mr Slaveski’s mental state and his behaviour in Court, his wife, Mrs Slaveska, was appointed his litigation guardian on 14 December 2009.[2]
[2][2009] VSC 423 and [2009] VSC 596.

This proceeding concerns events which took place in the course of that trial on 2 June 2010.

The hearing before Kyrou J that day commenced with Mrs Slaveska giving an account of what she and her husband said was an attempt by police to murder them on their way to the Court that morning. After an indication from the judge that his capacity to address complaints against police away from the Court were limited, Mr Slaveski began behaving in a way which prompted the judge to firstly threaten to order his removal from the Court and to then do so. In response to that situation, Mr Slaveski embarked upon what was, on any view, an extraordinary and protracted outburst of anger and abuse.

For reasons which I set out in detail below, I find that what occurred in court that morning is accurately set out on the corrected transcript which was marked for identification as “P1”,[3] with the further additions and corrections, most of which are drawn from Mrs Slaveska’s evidence, in the table annexed to this judgement. The further additions and corrections bring MFI P1 into accordance with the audio and video evidence. There was one correction which Mrs Slaveska suggested in her evidence which I have not accepted.

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 [2011] VSC 643
Case: [2011] VSC 643
Decision Date: 13 December 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Slaveski, the respondent was charged with two counts of contempt of court, arising from conduct during a criminal trial in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent's conduct included verbal abuse, allegations of impropriety and corruption against the presiding judge, and threats directed at the judge. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct amounted to contempt of court. The court had to consider the principles and tests for determining whether conduct is contemptuous, as well as the scope of contempt as it relates to allegations of impropriety and corruption against a judge, and threats made towards a judge. The court also had to determine whether the respondent's conduct was such that it was necessary and appropriate to convict him of contempt.

The court found that the respondent's conduct did indeed amount to contempt of court. It held that the respondent's verbal abuse, allegations of impropriety and corruption, and threats directed at the presiding judge were capable of undermining public confidence in the administration of justice, and were therefore contemptuous. The court found that the respondent's conduct was such that it was necessary and appropriate to convict him of contempt, and dismissed his appeal. The court held that the principle that a judge is entitled to be free from abuse and threats in the course of his or her duties is fundamental to the administration of justice, and that it is necessary to uphold this principle by convicting contemnors of such conduct.

The court did not make any orders beyond dismissing the respondent's appeal and affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the County Court.

Orders