Slaveski v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0173

LUPCO SLAVESKI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST JA and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 September 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 September 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 264
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	The Queen (on the application of the A-G) v Slaveski [2015] VSC 416 (King J).

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – Contempt – Applicant sentenced to 23 months imprisonment with 15 month non-parole period – Applicant fugitive from the jurisdiction – Whether applicant can appeal while not submitting to the Court’s jurisdiction – Leave to appeal refused without an adjudication on the merits – Jopar v The Queen (2013) 275 FLR 454 – Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearance
For the Crown	Mr J Langmead QC with Ms F Forsyth	Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office

PRIEST JA
CROUCHER AJA:

The issue

Lupco Slaveski (whom we shall call ‘the applicant’) was found guilty of contempt of court by King J on 12 August 2015. In all, the applicant was convicted of nine charges relating to the use of threatening, violent, abusive and offensive language in telephone calls, emails and in court to judicial officers, court employees, lawyers and their families.[1]
[1]The Queen (on the application of the A-G) v Slaveski [2015] VSC 400 (‘the contempt proceeding’).

On 14 August 2015, King J sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for 23 months, with a non-parole period of 15 months, in relation to the charges.[2]
[2]The Queen (on the application of the A-G) v Slaveski [2015] VSC 416 (‘the sentence proceeding’).

Within the statutory time period, in September 2015 the applicant purported to seek leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence under Part 6.3 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009. Thus, the applicant sought to file documents styled notices of appeal against conviction and sentence, and a written case. Both the ‘Notice to Appeal Against Conviction’ and the ‘Notice to Appeal Against Sentence’, it should be noted, contain scandalous content, so that the applicant asserts that he ‘was convicted in conspiracy’. Moreover, the ‘Written Case for the Applicant’ fails to comply with the applicable Rules.[3]
[3]See Practice Direction No 2 of 2011, Section 4.

A question has arisen as to whether the notices of appeal and written case should be accepted for filing, given that the applicant remains a fugitive from the execution of a warrant for his arrest made by a judge of this Court.[4] Written submissions were thus sought from the applicant and the respondent directed to that question.
[4]Slaveski v Attorney-General (Vic) [2015] VSCA 31, [68].

The course of proceedings in this Court

We are satisfied both that a request from the Registry seeking submissions, and notifying him of today’s hearing, was communicated to the applicant. Indeed, on 10 September 2015, the applicant sent an email to the Registry…

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 Slaveski v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Slaveski v The Queen [2015] VSCA 264
Case: [2015] VSCA 264
Decision Date: 18 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence from an applicant who had been found guilty of contempt and sentenced to 23 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The applicant, a fugitive from the jurisdiction, sought leave to appeal without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant could appeal under such circumstances and if the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 applied.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant, being a fugitive, could appeal against his conviction and sentence without submitting to the court's jurisdiction. The court had to consider precedents and statutory provisions, particularly the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014, to assess the validity of the application. The court needed to balance the applicant's right to appeal with the principles of finality and the importance of the court's jurisdiction.

The court held that the applicant could not appeal while refusing to submit to its jurisdiction. The court referenced Jopar v The Queen, where it was established that a fugitive cannot appeal without submitting to the court's authority. The court further noted that the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2014 did not apply in this instance, as the applicant's appeal was not deemed vexatious. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused without an adjudication on the merits.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence, without reaching the merits of the case. The court emphasised the importance of the applicant submitting to its jurisdiction to pursue an appeal, aligning with established legal principles and statutory provisions.

Orders