Legal Research
Cases
Slaveski v The Queen

Slaveski v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 48 20 March 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0018 S APCI 2011 0188
LJUPCO SLAVESKI	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN (ON THE APPLICATION OF THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA)	Respondent
VICTORIAN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION	Intervening

---

JUDGES	WARREN CJ, NETTLE and REDLICH JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	30 January 2012, 2 February 2012, 13 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	20 March 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 48 (Revision 2, 11 April 2012)
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Slaveski [2011] VSC 643 (13 December 2011) (Conviction) R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7 (20 January 2012) (Sentence)

- - -

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – One count of contempt of court – Appellant alleged to have engaged in abusive behaviour in court – Allegations of impropriety and corruption made against Court and presiding judge – Threat to presiding judge – Whether trial judge erred in refusing to grant adjournment for appellant to obtain legal representation – Natural justice – Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities – Whether trial judge biased – Appeal against conviction abandoned – Grounds of appeal would not have been made out.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction – Abandonment – Whether applicant could reinstate appeal against conviction after counsel had abandoned the appeal but accused subsequently chose to represent himself and denied providing instructions to withdraw appeal – No evidence to support allegations counsel had acted contrary to instructions – Leave to reinstate appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – One count of contempt of court – Appellant alleged to have engaged in abusive behaviour in court – Allegations of impropriety and corruption made against Court and presiding judge – Threat to presiding judge – Sentenced to two months’ imprisonment with further one month’s imprisonment in default of paying costs – Whether trial judge failed to take sufficient account of apologies – Whether trial judge failed to take account of applicant’s mental illness – Whether trial judge erred in taking into account applicant’s previous suspended sentence – Whether sentence of two months manifestly excessive – Whether change in circumstance since sentence - Whether trial judge erred in imposing fixed term of imprisonment in default of payment of costs – Appeal allowed in part – Appellant resentenced to two months’ imprisonment – Appellant ordered to pay indemnity costs - R v Eliasen [1991] 53 A Crim R 391.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against refusal to grant application for recusal – Apprehended bias – Whether warning given by trial judge about issuing a bench warrant amounted to apprehended bias – Accused had alleged that trial judge had been working from altered documents, had the goal of imprisoning accused and was ‘covering up’ interference in evidence – Whether refusing to provide all films from court precinct could amount to apprehended bias – Whether refusing to allow accused to take a break in order to access medication amounted to apprehended bias – No basis for allegations – Apprehended…

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 (on the application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria) [2012] VSCA 48
Case: [2012] VSCA 48
Decision Date: 20 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by Slaveski, who had been convicted of contempt of court. The conviction stemmed from Slaveski's conduct during a trial in which he engaged in abusive behaviour, made allegations of impropriety and corruption against the Court and the presiding judge, and threatened the judge. Slaveski challenged his conviction on various grounds, including the trial judge's refusal to grant an adjournment for him to obtain legal representation, and the trial judge's alleged bias. However, Slaveski later abandoned the appeal against his conviction.

Slaveski also appealed against the sentence imposed for the contempt charge, arguing that the trial judge failed to take sufficient account of his apologies and his mental illness, and that the sentence of two months’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive. He further contended that the trial judge erred in imposing a fixed term of imprisonment in default of payment of costs. The appeal against the sentence was allowed in part, and Slaveski was resentenced to two months’ imprisonment, with an order to pay indemnity costs.

Slaveski further appealed against the trial judge's refusal to recuse himself on the basis of apprehended bias. The allegations of bias included the trial judge working from altered documents, having the goal of imprisoning Slaveski, and 'covering up' interference in evidence. The appeal against recusal was dismissed, as there was no basis for the allegations of bias.

Lastly, Slaveski appealed against the refusal of the trial judge to grant an adjournment of the trial, claiming that the trial judge had erred in not granting an adjournment where counsel and solicitors had withdrawn and legal aid had been withdrawn during the trial through his actions. The appeal was dismissed, as there was no error and no denial of natural justice.

Orders