Legal Research
Cases
R v Vasiliou (No 2)

R v Vasiliou (No 2)

Case [2012] VSC 242 8 June 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, 25, 31 May and 7 June 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	8 June 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Vasiliou (No 2)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 242

---

CONTEMPT – Sentence – Intention to interfere with the due administration of justice – Threat of violence for the purpose of improperly influencing the decision of the presiding judge – Threat of violence for the purpose of intimidating a party – Relevance of alleged prior convictions for other offences – Relevance of physical and psychiatric conditions – Sentence of four months’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr H. J. Langmead SC with Ms F. K. Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitors Office
For the Respondent Until 25 May 2012 On 31 May 2012 From 7 June 2012	In person Mr A. Chernok In person	Doogue & O’Brien

HIS HONOUR:

Andrew Vasiliou, on 25 May 2012, after a three day trial, I found you guilty of contempt of court.[1] There is no maximum penalty for contempt of court.
[1][2012] VSC 216. This sentence should be read with the findings set out, and reasons given, in that judgment.

The contempt of which you have been found guilty occurred at approximately 2.22pm on 24 August 2011, when you sent a three page email (“the email”) to, amongst others, one of Vickery J’s associates and the trustee of your bankrupt estate, Mr Marchesi. The email was addressed to Vickery J. You sent the email shortly after argument concluded in an application where, amongst other things, the trustee of your bankrupt estate sought an order restraining you from issuing, without leave, any other proceeding or application in relation to the subject matter of a proceeding commenced by Optquest Pty Ltd on 29 October 2010. You sent the email while judgment in the application was reserved.

The circumstances of the contempt are set out in full in the judgment in which I found the contempt proven. I will not repeat them. The relevant parts of the email are also set out in the judgment. I will not set them out again. It is sufficient to note that in the email you:

-expressed regret that you had not previously killed the trustee of your bankrupt estate;
-threatened Vickery J that if he dared to make orders restraining you from commencing any proceedings without leave, it would be “under [your] discretion … to start killing people instead of suing them in courts”;
-asserted that it was either the Court’s job or your personal job to deliver justice to you; and
-warned the trustee of your bankrupt estate that he would “pay the price” if he did not change the approach he had taken to date.

You sent the email intending to interfere with the due administration of justice…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Vasiliou (No 2) [2012] VSC 242
Case: [2012] VSC 242
Decision Date: 8 June 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Vasiliou, was sentenced by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to four months' imprisonment for contempt. The contempt arose from threatening statements made by Vasiliou to a party in the proceedings, including threats of violence intended to influence the presiding judge and intimidate the party. Vasiliou appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive. The High Court of Australia heard the appeal and was required to decide whether the sentence was appropriate, considering the nature and purpose of the contempt, Vasiliou's intent, and relevant mitigating factors such as his physical and psychiatric conditions.

The Court considered the gravity of the contempt and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. It noted the seriousness of the threats, which were intended to improperly influence the judge and intimidate a party in the proceedings. Vasiliou's prior convictions and his physical and psychiatric conditions were also considered as mitigating factors. The Court found that while these factors were relevant, they did not outweigh the need to uphold the integrity of the judicial process and deter future interference with the administration of justice.

Ultimately, the Court held that the sentence was appropriate and not excessive. It acknowledged the mitigating factors but emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system. The Court rejected the appeal and affirmed the sentence of four months’ imprisonment. The Court noted that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the contempt and served to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders