Slavich v R

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 52/2009
SC 53/2009
[2011] NZSC 103

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH

THE QUEEN

Court: Blanchard and McGrath JJ

Counsel: Applicant in Person
M E Ball for Crown

Judgment: 13 September 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed

REASONS

Mr Slavich applies for recall of this Court’s judgment of 10 August 2009[1] in which it declined to grant him leave to appeal the dismissal by the Court of Appeal of his appeal against conviction on sundry fraud offences.[2]
[1] R v Slavich [2009] NZSC 87.
[2] R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188.
He seeks to raise again one factual matter previously put before this Court, namely whether the trial Judge who found him guilty had considered both a brief of evidence of one of the witnesses and a transcript of answers given by that witness during a telephone conference. It is contended again that the Judge did not consider the latter, in which the witness is said to have contradicted in some respects what she had said in the former.
The material to which the applicant directs attention is not fresh. It was all before the Court of Appeal which was satisfied that the Judge considered the content of both documents. That conclusion is hardly surprising as the Judge directly and expressly referred to both in his Reasons for Verdict.[3] He expressly refers to the answers given by the witness, which is clearly a reference to answers given to questions put during the conference.
[3] R v Slavich HC Hamilton CRI-2006-419-89, 12 October 2006 at [15]–[17].
Nothing new has been put forward which provides any basis for recall of this Court’s judgment.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, John Kenneth Slavich, has applied for a recall of the Supreme Court of New Zealand’s judgment from 10 August 2009. In the original case, Slavich sought leave to appeal against his conviction on various fraud offences, but his appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. The present application seeks to re-examine the consideration of certain evidence by the trial judge. Specifically, Slavich argues that the trial judge did not consider a transcript of answers given by a witness during a telephone conference, which allegedly contradicted some of her earlier statements. The Court of Appeal had previously reviewed this matter and found that the trial judge had indeed considered both the brief of evidence and the transcript.

The legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether there were sufficient grounds to recall the earlier judgment. Slavich’s argument hinges on the contention that the trial judge overlooked the transcript of the witness's telephone conference, which he believes contains critical contradictions. However, the Court noted that the material in question was already before the Court of Appeal, which had concluded that the judge had considered both the brief of evidence and the transcript. Moreover, the trial judge explicitly referred to both documents in his reasons for the verdict, specifically mentioning the witness's answers during the conference. Therefore, the Court found that there was no new evidence or argument presented that would warrant a recall of the judgment.

The Supreme Court dismissed the application for recall, holding that no new evidence or argument had been presented that would justify revisiting the earlier decision. The Court reaffirmed the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge had considered all relevant materials. Consequently, Slavich's application was unsuccessful, and the earlier judgment stands affirmed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established