IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV-2012-404-6353 [2013] NZHC 627
IN THE MATTER OF an application under s 88B of the
Judicature Act 1908
BETWEEN ATTORNEY-GENERAL Applicant
ANDJOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Respondent
Hearing: 11, 12 and 13 March 2013
Court:Cooper J Toogood J
Appearances: P J Gunn for Applicant
Respondent in Person
B D Gray QC as Amicus Curiae
Judgment: 27 March 2013
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
This judgment was delivered by Justice Cooper on
27 March 2013 at 2.00 p.m., pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar
Date:
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, PO Box 2858, Wellington peter.gunn@crownlaw.govt.nz
J K Slavich, PO Box 120, Hamilton 3240 JKS22@hotmail.com
B D Gray QC, PO Box 4338, Shortland Street, Auckland 1140 bdgray@shortlandchambers.co.nz
ATTORNEY-GENERAL V SLAVICH HC AK CIV-2012-404-6353 [27 March 2013]
Contents
Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Result......................................................................................................................[7] Preliminary .............................................................................................................[9] Subpoena to Mr Douch ........................................................................................[10] Respondent’s application for summary judgment ................................................[16] Application to disqualify counsel for the applicant .............................................[17] Application for adjournment ................................................................................[20] The convictions ....................................................................................................[24] Findings of fact ....................................................................................................[25] Heath J’s decision.................................................................................................[46] The evidence of Ms Gibbs (Mrs Calder)..............................................................[64] The Court of Appeal – decision extending time for appealing ............................[88] The Court of Appeal – substantive judgment.......................................................[90] The Supreme Court ............................................................................................[103] Subsequent proceedings .....................................................................................[107] Private prosecutions...........................................................................................[109] Civil proceedings................................................................................................[123] The Pacesetter litigation .....................................................................................[142] The law ...............................................................................................................[150] Evaluation ..........................................................................................................[164] Relief sought ......................................................................................................[175] Orders .................................................................................................................[179]
Introduction
[1] This is an application under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908. The Attorney- General seeks an order against Mr Slavich on the basis that, in terms of the section, he has persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious legal proceedings.
[2] Mr Slavich was tried in the High Court at Hamilton between 18 and
22 September 2006. Mr Slavich had sought that the trial be before a Judge alone. That application was not opposed and Heath J granted it prior to the trial. There were originally ten counts in the indictment, but Mr Slavich was discharged under s 347 of the Crimes Act 1961 on two of them. At the close of the Crown case, the prosecutor, Mr Douch, indicated that he did not intend to pursue another of the counts and Mr Slavich was discharged on that count before being put to an election as to whether to call evidence.
[3] On 12 October 2006, Heath J convicted Mr Slavich on six of the remaining seven counts. Since two of the charges originally laid were expressed as alternatives, the conviction on one of the counts meant that no verdict was required on the alternative count. In the end, Mr Slavich was convicted on counts alleging that he used a document for the purpose of obtaining a benefit, with intent to defraud, contrary to s 229A of the Crimes Act (counts 1 and 5); forgery contrary to s 264 of the Act (counts 2 and 8); uttering a forged document contrary to s 266 of the Act (count 7) and drawing a document without authority contrary to s 272 of…
Continue reading Attorney-General v Slavich
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627
- Case
- [2013] NZHC 627
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.