Mr Slavich seeks to review a judgment of Arnold J of 16 November 2015 upholding the conclusion of the Registrar not to accept documents for filing.[1] He has invoked the review jurisdiction conferred by s 28(3) of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and for this reason his application has been addressed by all permanent members of the Court including Arnold J.
[1]Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 174.
Initially in issue were two applications for leave to appeal filed by Mr Slavich on 17 October 2012. Both were by way of indirect challenge to the judgment of Heath J of 12 October 2006[2] in which he had found Mr Slavich guilty of a number of offences. They sought leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decisions in:
(a)Slavich v R,[3] in which the Court dismissed Mr Slavich’s applications for recall of the Court’s judgments in R v Slavich[4] and Slavich v R;[5] and
(b)Slavich v R,[6] dismissing Mr Slavich’s appeal against a decision of Heath J[7] in which the Judge refused to recall his decision of 12 October 2006.[8]

The Registrar was of the view that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals. Mr Slavich challenged his decision in relation to only the second application and this challenge was heard and rejected by Arnold J.

[2]R v Slavich (verdict) HC Hamilton CIV-2006-419-89, 12 October 2006.

[3]Slavich v R [2012] NZCA 431 (O’Regan P, Harrison and White JJ).

[4]R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188.

[5]Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 586.

[6]Slavich v R [2012] NZCA 432 (O’Regan P, Harrison and White JJ).

[7]Slavich v New Zealand Police HC Hamilton CIV-2006-419-89, 13 December 2011.

[8]We consider that this is a correct description even though Heath J’s ground for dismissing the application was want of jurisdiction on the basis that the application was a collateral attack on decisions of the Court of Appeal and this Court.

Under the Supreme Court Act 2003, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to entertain appeals against decisions in criminal proceedings is provided for in s 10 which, at the time relevant to these proceedings, was confined to the jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Part XIII and s 406A of the Crimes Act 1961. Under s 383A, that jurisdiction in relation to judgments of the Court of Appeal was confined to decisions of the Court of Appeal on appeal under section 383.[9] The decisions of the Court of Appeal in issue in this case are not of that kind. Accordingly there is no jurisdiction…

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 Slavich v R

Details

AGLC: Slavich v R [2015] NZSC 195
Case: [2015] NZSC 195
Decision Date: 18 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to decide on an application for leave to appeal filed by John Kenneth Slavich. The appeal aimed to challenge decisions made by the Registrar and Arnold J, who had previously refused to accept documents for filing. The case was heard by Elias CJ, William Young, Glazebrook, Arnold, and O'Regan JJ. Slavich represented himself in the proceedings. The central legal issues in the case were whether the Supreme Court had the jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals, and if not, how no-jurisdiction issues should be managed within the Court.

The court examined the applicable provisions of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and the Supreme Court Rules 2004, which did not explicitly address how no-jurisdiction issues should be determined or what review rights, if any, were available. The court concluded that as part of its inherent power to supervise the way in which the business of the Court was managed by the Registrar, it was entitled to determine how no-jurisdiction questions were to be dealt with. The court considered that the approach taken in the past, where the Registrar could refuse to accept documents for want of jurisdiction and a single Judge could review the decision, was not particularly congruent with the scheme of the Act and Rules. The court proposed that, for the future, the Registrar should identify jurisdiction issues with applications, but if the applicant wished to persist, it should be referred to a leave panel of two or three judges. If the judges on that panel were of the view that there was no jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal, they could dismiss the application on that basis.

In this particular case, the court found that there was no jurisdiction to hear the proposed appeals. The court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal filed by Slavich for want of jurisdiction. All members of the Court participated in the decision.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the applications for leave to appeal filed by Slavich for want of jurisdiction.

Orders