We grant an extension of time for appealing. We direct that:
· full grounds of appeal are to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of delivery of this judgment;
· the appellant's submissions are to be filed within 14 days of the date of filing of the points on appeal;
· the Crown submissions are to be filed within 14 days of the filing of the appellant’s submissions;
· as soon as the submissions are filed the Registrar is to allocate a fixture for the hearing of the appeal.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Hammond J)
Introduction
[1] We have before us an application for an extension of time for appealing against conviction.
[2] After a trial before Heath J sitting without a jury convictions were entered against Mr Slavich on several counts of dishonesty: using a document with intent to defraud, to obtain a benefit; forgery; uttering a forged document; and unlawfully making a false document. The Judge delivered full reasons for his verdicts. The convictions were entered, and the reasons delivered, on 12 October 2006.
[3] Mr Slavich was a chartered accountant in private practice in Hamilton. The prosecution case against him was that he was one of the “compliant” professionals that enabled Leslie Ronald Orchard, a dedicated fraudster, to perpetrate a number of substantial frauds. Mr Orchard was himself charged with 686 offences of fraud, forgery and money laundering, in relation to monies apparently amounting to some $1,458,000. He pleaded guilty to all those charges, and was sentenced in early 2003 to seven years six months imprisonment with a five year non-parole period. That sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal to six years nine months, with a minimum non-parole period of four years six months. He subsequently pleaded guilty to a further 17 charges, for which he received a sentence of 18 months cumulative.
[4] On 21 November 2006, Mr Slavich was sentenced to two years three months imprisonment. He was subsequently released on home detention.
[5] Mr Slavich did not file an appeal against his convictions until 3 September 2007, some ten months after the convictions were entered.
[6] Although the substantive appeal was set down for hearing before this panel on 17 April 2008, on a preliminary inspection of the file prior to the hearing, it was noted that the appeal was well out of time but no application for an extension of time and supporting affidavits had been filed. On 2 April 2008, we convened a telephone conference with counsel. The Crown indicated that it wished to firmly oppose any application for an extension of time for appealing. With the full agreement of counsel, a direction was given that only the extension…
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 Slavich
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Slavich [2008] NZCA 116
Case
[2008] NZCA 116
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, John Kenneth Slavich, a chartered accountant, was convicted of various counts of dishonesty, including using a document with intent to defraud, forgery, uttering a forged document, and unlawfully making a false document. He was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment, which was subsequently reduced to home detention. The Crown opposed his application for an extension of time for appealing against his conviction and sentence. The primary issue before the Court was whether to grant an extension of time for Mr Slavich to file his appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, the merits of the appeal, and the impact on the administration of justice. The Court found that Mr Slavich had an honest but mistaken belief that an appeal had been filed. Although the prospects of success were not strong, the appeal raised arguable points that went to the heart of the prosecution's case. The Court granted an extension of time for appealing and provided directions for the filing of necessary documents and the allocation of a fixture for the hearing of the appeal.
The Court's decision to grant an extension of time for appealing against conviction and sentence was based on the principle that the discretion to grant an extension of time is not unfettered, and the touchstone is the interests of justice in the particular case. The Court considered the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal, the merits of the appeal, and the impact on the administration of justice. In this case, the Court found that Mr Slavich had an honest but mistaken belief that an appeal had been filed, and although the prospects of success were not strong, the appeal raised arguable points that went to the heart of the prosecution's case. The Court also noted a potential issue with the status of Ms Gibbs' evidence, which may have implications for the trial as a whole.