John Kenneth Slavich v The Queen
[2011] NZSC 139
•17 November 2011
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND |
| SC 108/2011 [2011] NZSC 139 |
| JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH |
| v |
| THE QUEEN |
| Court: Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ |
| Counsel: Applicant in person |
| Judgment: 17 November 2011 |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
REASONS
Mr Slavich was found guilty of fraud in 2006 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. That term was reduced by the sentencer to reflect the fact that Mr Slavich was also ordered to pay reparation of $60,000 within 12 months of the date of sentencing.
He appealed against his conviction. That appeal was unsuccessful.[1] He has never at any time appealed against the sentence.
[1] R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188.
He failed to pay the reparation. The High Court has now substituted for the reparation a further sentence of imprisonment for a term of four and a half months.[2] He now wishes to appeal to this Court against dismissal by the Court of Appeal of an appeal against that variation of his sentence.[3]
[2] R v Slavich HC Hamilton CRI-2006-419-89, 10 September 2010.
[3] Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 457.
It is apparent that Mr Slavich’s family, including a family trust, have the means to pay the reparation on his behalf, just as they have previously assisted him to pay his legal fees. Evidently the family is not prepared to make the reparation sum available because they consider that he was wrongly convicted.
Of course the family have no obligation to make the payment. In the absence of payment, however, and bearing in mind that the original prison term was fixed on the basis that reparation would be paid, it was well open to the High Court Judge, in the exercise of his discretion, to substitute for the unpaid reparation a further sentence of imprisonment. That exercise of discretion has been reviewed by the Court of Appeal and does not merit further review by this Court.
Mr Slavich attempts, irrelevantly, to raise again issues about the conviction. It is not open to him to do so on an appeal relating to an aspect of sentence only. He makes allegations about the conduct of Crown counsel but they are simply a collateral means of trying to impeach the conviction. He suggests that he has been disadvantaged by not having received legal aid for the hearing in the Court of Appeal. Again, however, that was because of the same funding situation. In any event, it is far from apparent that the existence of legal representation could have made any difference.
No matter of general or public importance arises and there is no appearance of any substantial miscarriage of justice.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington
2