Legal Research
Cases
R v Vasiliou

R v Vasiliou

Case [2012] VSC 216 25 May 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

No. S CI 2011 5566

THE QUEEN	Applicant
v
ANDREW VASILIOU	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14, 21 - 22 May 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 May 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vasiliou
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 216

---

CONTEMPT – Tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice – Improper pressure on a party – Threat of violence – Threat of violence for the purpose of intimidating a party – Threat of violence for the purpose of intimidating the presiding judge - Threat of violence for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of the presiding judge – Abuse – Allegations of impropriety and corruption for the purpose of intimidating the presiding judge – Allegations of impropriety and corruption for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of the presiding judge.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr H. J. Langmead SC with Ms F. K. Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitors Office
For the Respondent	In person

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

On 29 October 2010, Optquest Pty Ltd commenced a proceeding in this Court against Brendan John Marchesi (as trustee of the bankrupt estate of Andrew Vasiliou (a former bankrupt)). The primary relief sought by Optquest was an order for specific performance of an agreement dated 25 March 1989 in which Mr Vasiliou purported to sell various properties to Optquest. By summons filed 28 January 2011, Mr Marchesi sought summary dismissal of Optquest’s claim. Other orders were also sought, including an order that Mr Vasiliou be restrained from issuing, without leave, any other proceeding or application in this Court in relation to the subject matter of Optquest’s proceeding.

On 24 August 2011, Mr Marchesi’s summons came on for hearing before Vickery J.[1] At the hearing before Vickery J, Mr Vasiliou, who was also the second defendant by counterclaim, appeared on behalf of Optquest.[2] The hearing concluded at approximately 12.30pm.
[1]It is not necessary to set out the steps that occurred between the filing of the summons on 28 January and the hearing on 24 August. These are set out in Optquest Pty Ltd v Marchesi [2011] VSC 428, [6] (Vickery J).
[2]Ibid, [3].

In the present proceeding it is alleged that at approximately 2.22pm on 24 August 2011, Mr Vasiliou sent a three page email (“the email”) to, amongst others, one of Vickery J’s associates and Mr Marchesi. The body of the email (which was exhibited to affidavits filed in this proceeding) commenced “Dear JUSTICE VICKERY”. The email contained 25 paragraphs, and included[3] the following six extracted paragraphs:[4]
[3]As typed in the original.
[4]Paragraphs 14, 18, 20, 21, 23 and 24.

“IN regards to my CRIMINAL TRUSTEE in BANKRUPTCY I am very SORRY for myself that I did NOT KILLED him back before he FUCK ME and my FAMILY UP and I would have being out of JAIL by NOW and my FAMILY’S ‘3 properties’…

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 Vasiliou

Details

AGLC: R v Vasiliou [2012] VSC 216
Case: [2012] VSC 216
Decision Date: 25 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Vasiliou, the defendant faced charges related to contempt of court due to actions that allegedly interfered with the due administration of justice. The court was presented with evidence suggesting that the defendant had engaged in activities intended to improperly influence a party in a proceeding before the court, including threats of violence and allegations of impropriety and corruption directed at the presiding judge. The dispute centred on whether these actions constituted contempt of court under the relevant provisions.

The legal issues the court had to decide involved the interpretation and application of the contempt of court provisions concerning interference with the due administration of justice. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the defendant's threats of violence and allegations of impropriety and corruption amounted to contempt, particularly if these actions were intended to intimidate or improperly influence the presiding judge or any party to the proceeding. The court also needed to consider the threshold for establishing such contempt, including whether the threats and allegations had the effect of intimidating or influencing the decision-making process of the presiding judge.

The court found that the defendant's actions did indeed constitute contempt of court. The threats of violence and the allegations of impropriety and corruption were deemed to have the tendency to interfere with the due administration of justice. The court held that these actions were intended to intimidate the presiding judge and improperly influence their decision. The evidence demonstrated a clear intention to undermine the judicial process, thereby satisfying the elements required for a finding of contempt. The court concluded that the defendant's conduct warranted the imposition of sanctions under the contempt of court provisions.

The final orders included a declaration that the defendant's actions constituted contempt of court and a conviction accordingly. The court also imposed appropriate penalties in line with the seriousness of the contempt. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the judicial process and the severe consequences for those who attempt to undermine it through improper and intimidating conduct.

Orders