Slavich v R - [2015] NZSC 174

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

[2015] NZSC 174

BETWEEN	JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Counsel:	Applicant in person
Judgment:	16 November 2015

JUDGMENT OF ARNOLD J
REVIEW OF REGISTRAR’S DECISION

The application for review of the Registrar’s decision is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

On 17 October 2012 the applicant, Mr Slavich, filed two applications for leave to appeal to this Court against decisions of the Court of Appeal:
(a)One application was against the Court of Appeal’s decision in Slavich v R,[1] in which the Court dismissed Mr Slavich’s applications for recall of the Court’s judgments in R v Slavich[2] and Slavich v R.[3]
(i)In R v Slavich, the Court had dismissed Mr Slavich’s appeal against his convictions on various dishonesty counts, including forgery, using documents for a dishonest purpose, uttering and making documents without lawful authority.
(ii)In Slavich v R, the Court had dismissed Mr Slavich’s application for recall of its judgment on his conviction appeal.
(b)The second application was against the Court of Appeal’s decision in Slavich v R,[4] dismissing Mr Slavich’s appeal against a decision of Heath J[5] in which the Judge refused to recall his decision of 12 October 2006.[6] In that 2006 decision, Heath J had found Mr Slavich guilty of the dishonesty offences.
[1]Slavich v R [2012] NZCA 431 (O’Regan P, Harrison and White JJ).
[2]R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188.
[3]Slavich v R [2011] NZCA 586.
[4]Slavich v R [2012] NZCA 432 (O’Regan P, Harrison and White JJ).
[5]Slavich v New Zealand Police HC Hamilton CIV-2006-419-89, 13 December 2011.
[6]R v Slavich (verdict) HC Hamilton CIV-2006-419-89, 12 October 2006.
The Registrar has refused to accept the two applications on the ground that this Court does not have jurisdiction to deal with them. Mr Slavich now seeks a review of the Registrar’s decision. I have concluded that the Registrar was correct to refuse to accept the applications as the Court lacks jurisdiction to deal with them. To explain my conclusion, I must set out the background in a little more detail.
As I have said, following a Judge alone trial before Heath J, Mr Slavich was convicted of various offences of dishonesty. His appeal against conviction was dismissed by the Court of Appeal,[7] as was his subsequent application for leave to appeal to this Court.[8] Mr Slavich then applied for a recall of this Court’s decision refusing leave but that application was also declined.[9]
[7]R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188.
[8]Slavich v R [2009] NZSC 87.
[9]Slavich v R [2011] NZSC 103.
Next Mr Slavich sought a recall of the Court of Appeal’s decision dismissing his appeal against conviction. That application was also dismissed.[10] Mr Slavich then filed a further application for recall of the Court of Appeal’s decision on his conviction appeal and an application for recall of its decision on his recall application. It was these applications that were…

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 174
Case: [2015] NZSC 174
Decision Date: 16 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the applicant, Mr. John Kenneth Slavich, sought leave to appeal against decisions of the Court of Appeal in two separate cases. These cases involved Mr. Slavich's previous unsuccessful attempts to appeal his convictions on various counts of dishonesty, including forgery and uttering documents without lawful authority. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Mr. Slavich's appeals against his convictions and his applications for recall of its judgments. Mr. Slavich also sought recall of a decision by Heath J, which had found him guilty of the same dishonesty offences. The Court of Appeal had dismissed his appeal against Heath J's decision as an abuse of process. Mr. Slavich now sought leave to appeal the Court of Appeal's decisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether it had jurisdiction to hear Mr. Slavich's applications for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decisions. The court needed to determine if the Court of Appeal's decisions refusing recall and dismissing appeals against conviction were appealable decisions. It also had to consider whether Mr. Slavich's applications for recall were collateral attacks on earlier decisions that had conclusively determined the issues at hand. The court's reasoning focused on the statutory framework governing appeals and the nature of the decisions made by the Court of Appeal.

The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear Mr. Slavich's applications for leave to appeal. The court's jurisdiction to hear appeals from the Court of Appeal was limited to decisions on appeals against conviction under the Crimes Act 1961. Decisions of the Court of Appeal refusing to recall or re-open its appeal decisions did not fall within this category. The court also held that Mr. Slavich's applications for recall constituted collateral attacks on earlier decisions that had conclusively determined the issues, and therefore, they were not appealable. The court dismissed Mr. Slavich's application for review of the Registrar's decision and concluded that the Registrar was correct in refusing to accept the applications for leave to appeal.

In summary, the Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed Mr. Slavich's applications for leave to appeal against decisions of the Court of Appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear such appeals. The court's decision was based on the statutory framework governing appeals and the nature of the decisions made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders