Legal Research
Cases
Slavich v R

Slavich v R

Case [2009] NZSC 87 10 August 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC 52/2009
SC 53/2009
[2009] NZSC 87
JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH
v
THE QUEEN
Court:Blanchard, McGrath and Wilson JJ
Counsel:Applicant in person

M E Ball for Crown

Judgment:10 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

BOTH APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL ARE DISMISSED.
REASONS
[1]       The applicant was convicted at trial by Judge alone of a number of dishonesty offences relating to his role in two transactions in which a group of fraudsters deceived financiers into believing they were advancing funds to the owners of certain properties. One of the group impersonated the owners. Mr Slavich knowingly assisted in the deception. As the Court of Appeal[1] found, the case against him was very strong.
[1]     R v Slavich [2009] NZCA 188, CA 461/2007 (Chambers, Gendall and Allan JJ).
[2]       Mr Slavich now seeks to appeal to this Court raising many detailed but ultimately unpersuasive arguments designed to cast doubt on the Judge’s findings. Those findings have been confirmed by the Court of Appeal after hearing argument presented for the applicant by very experienced senior counsel. The applicant is, in essence, asking this Court to further review the facts. This is not our role in the absence of something suggesting that there may have been a miscarriage of justice, which we are satisfied has not occurred in this case.
[3]       In particular, addressing a matter given special emphasis by the applicant, we are satisfied that it is not reasonably arguable that the Judge has fallen into error concerning the evidence of Mrs Calder.
[4]       The applicant attempts to raise in this Court for the first time an argument that his trial counsel erred in failing to call as a defence witness the principal fraudster who may, it is suggested, have given evidence exculpatory of the applicant. Given the history of the offending, it may be thought unlikely that this would have been accepted by the jury. In any event, no confirmation of that person’s willingness to give such evidence has been provided.
Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington

Details

AGLC: Slavich v R [2009] NZSC 87
Case: [2009] NZSC 87
Decision Date: 10 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Slavich v R, the applicant, John Kenneth Slavich, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for multiple dishonesty offences related to his involvement in fraudulent transactions. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Justices Blanchard, McGrath, and Wilson, dismissed both applications for leave to appeal. Slavich was convicted for his role in two transactions where a group of fraudsters deceived financiers into believing they were advancing funds to property owners. One of the group members impersonated the owners, and Slavich knowingly assisted in the deception. The Court of Appeal had previously confirmed the findings against Slavich, and he now sought further review from the Supreme Court.

The legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether Slavich's numerous arguments, aimed at casting doubt on the judge's findings, were persuasive enough to warrant an appeal. The Court needed to determine if there was any reasonable arguability that a miscarriage of justice had occurred. Slavich emphasised the evidence of Mrs Calder, but the Court was satisfied that the judge had not erred in this regard. Additionally, Slavich attempted to argue for the first time that his trial counsel should have called the principal fraudster as a defence witness, potentially providing exculpatory evidence. However, this argument was not supported by any confirmation of the principal fraudster's willingness to testify.

The Court found that the arguments presented by Slavich were ultimately unpersuasive and did not suggest a miscarriage of justice. The detailed arguments were seen as attempts to further review the facts, which is not the role of the Supreme Court in the absence of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, both applications for leave to appeal were dismissed.

Orders