Litigation & Dispute Resolution
Case Summary
The Queen v Slaveski
February 2012
Facts
Summary
Mr Slaveski brought a Supreme Court civil
proceeding against the State of Victoria and 23
current and former police members seeking
damages for assault and battery, false
imprisonment, malicious prosecution,
defamation, trespass to land, trespass to goods,
conversion, detinue and negligence. This
proceeding ran for 115 sitting days, between 3
August 2009 and 18 August 2010 and is the
longest-running Victorian civil trial by a selfrepresented litigant.
This case note considers the recent decisions of
Whelan J, in which His Honour found Mr Lupco
Slaveski guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced him to 2 months' imprisonment.1 Mr
Slaveski's case serves as a reminder of the
importance of appropriate behaviour in the
courtroom, and the serious consequences that
can result from committing contempt of court.
Due to concerns of the trial Judge, Justice Kyrou,
as to Mr Slaveski's mental state and his behaviour
in Court, Mr Slaveski's wife was appointed his
litigation guardian on 14 December 2009.
Mrs Slaveska sat at the bar table during the trial
with Mr Slaveski observing proceedings at a table
a row or two behind her toward the rear of the
Court.
On the morning of 2 June 2010, Mr and Mrs
Slaveski arrived in Court in an agitated state
claiming that an attempt had been made on their
lives on the way to court by a police officer on
the Metropolitan Ring Road. They claimed that
an officer in a marked police car had pulled them
over, sworn at them and reached for his gun; and
that after they refused to stop, other police
officers had later chased them.
In Court, Mrs Slaveska described to Justice Kyrou
what she had perceived to have occurred that
morning. After Justice Kyrou explained that he
was not prepared to embark on an inquiry as to
what she said had happened, Mrs Slaveska
started to debate the issue with the judge, when
Mr Slaveski began to interrupt by walking
around to Mrs Slaveska from his seat and
speaking to both her and the judge.
After six requests by Justice Kyrou for Mr
Slaveski to stop interrupting and to sit down, the
judge made a seventh request accompanied with
a warning that if Mr Slaveski failed to comply he
would be removed from the Court.
Page 2
At this point Mr Slaveski grabbed hold of Mrs
Slaveska's microphone and said to the judge in a
loud voice and demanding tone, "are you
threatening me?" This prompted the judge to
call for extra security to remove him from the
Court and for the judge's associate to activate the
duress button. Mr Slaveski then embarked on
what Whelan J described in his judgment as an
extraordinary and protracted outburst of anger
and abuse. In the course of this outburst he
made 20 statements that were alleged to
constitute contempt. These statements roughly
fell into four categories:

statements that were abusive of the
presiding judge and the Court, and that
disrupted and disturbed the proceeding;

statements that alleged impropriety,
partiality and corruption against the
presiding judge;

statements that alleged impropriety,
partiality and corruption against the
Court; and

statements that threatened the
presiding judge.2
In particular, Mr Slaveski's outburst included
repeated swearing, allegations that the presiding
judge was part of a conspiracy to kill Mr Slaveski
and his family, a reference to "Supreme Court
corruption", and a statement to Kyrou J: "Don't
make it come between you and me, your
Honour". Mr Slaveski's outburst was
accompanied by animated movement in the
courtroom, which included climbing onto a
courtroom chair and table, and flapping his arms
up and down.
Judgment in Mr Slaveski's civil proceeding was
handed down on 1 October 2010, with Kyrou J
finding for Mr Slaveski on a claim of trespass,
and for the defendants on all the other claims.
Kyrou J also ordered Mr Slaveski to pay the
State's costs.
After judgment had been delivered, Kyrou J
ordered the Prothonotary to initiate contempt
proceedings against Mr Slaveski for his conduct
on 2 June 2010. The trial of the contempt
proceeding commenced before Whelan J on
29 November 2011.
Contempt Proceedings
To establish the offence of contempt of court it
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt that
conduct occurred which constituted an
interference with or obstruction to the due
administration of justice or which had a
tendency to interfere with or obstruct the due
administration of justice.3 Proof of intention to
interfere with or obstruct the due administration
of justice is not an element of the offence,4 but is
relevant to penalty.5
Whilst Mr Slaveski was represented by solicitors
and counsel from the outset of the contempt
proceeding, he terminated his legal
representation on the third day of the trial, and
appeared in a self-represented capacity for the
remainder of the proceeding.
Mr Slaveski made a number of allegations in the
proceeding. He claimed that when he and his
wife were stopped and chased on the morning of
2 June 2010 by Victoria Police members and
threatened with a gun, it was part of a conspiracy
by Victoria Police to murder him and bring his
civil trial against other police to an end. He also
alleged that a video recording of the court
proceedings on 2 June 2010 depicting the
contemptuous conduct had been tampered with;
and that after Kyrou J called for extra security
one of the protective services officers (PSOs)
assaulted him.
Mr Slaveski's defence was at times conducted in
what can only be described as a colourful
manner. It featured, amongst other things,
several cameras, video recorders and computers
he brought into the court each day to display his
knowledge of video editing; and incidents of him
breaking into song in the court microphones to
the judge in an attempt to demonstrate the effect
of audio editing.
Page 3
After considering the evidence, Whelan J
rejected all of Mr Slaveski's allegations. In
rejecting the suggestion that a member of
Victoria Police threatened Mr and Mrs Slaveski
with a gun, his Honour found that they were
chased by police on the morning of the contempt
because a member of the highway patrol
detected Mr Slaveski speeding and attempted to
apprehend him, without success. Meanwhile, in
stating that he remained unpersuaded that Mr
Slaveski had been touched by a PSO in court,
Whelan J found that even if he had been
touched, it was lawful conduct ushering Mr
Slaveski from the courtroom and was not an
assault. His Honour commented on this point
that the "patience and forbearance of both the
judge and the PSOs in the circumstances was", in
his view, "extraordinary".
Further, Whelan J found that Mr Slaveski's
actions had been conscious, voluntary and
deliberate. His Honour found that Mr Slaveski's
conduct had a clear tendency to interfere with
and obstruct the due administration of justice:
Mr Slaveski had challenged the authority of the
Court, had alleged that it was corrupt, had
interrupted the Court's proceedings, and had
caused the adjournment of the hearing.
Whelan J also found that Mr Slaveski specifically
intended to interfere with or obstruct the due
administration of justice: his statements and the
manner in which they were delivered clearly
showed that Mr Slaveski had intended to be
abusive and disruptive, intended to allege
impropriety, partiality and corruption, and
intended to threaten the judge.6
Penalty Proceedings
In the penalty proceedings, Mr Slaveski tendered
evidence showing that he suffered from a mental
disorder. Whelan J accepted that as a result of
his mental disorder, Mr Slaveski suffered
significant anxiety and an impaired ability to
exercise appropriate judgment at the time of his
outburst in Court.
Whelan J held that Mr Slaveski's mental
condition reduced his moral culpability and was
relevant to determining the appropriate penalty.7
His Honour also recognised a number of other
mitigating factors: Mr Slaveski had a supportive
family; the contempt had occurred in a civil
rather than criminal proceeding; the disruption
caused by Mr Slaveski's outburst was relatively
minor; and over a year had passed since the
incident had occurred.
On the other hand, Mr Slaveski's offending was
serious, and was not an isolated incident — he
had previously behaved in ways that had resulted
in his exclusion from the courtroom.
Mr Slaveski had also made a number of
unfounded allegations against Court staff and
solicitors during the contempt proceedings.
These matters meant that both specific and
general deterrence were important
considerations in Mr Slaveski's case. Whelan J
emphasised that Mr Slaveski's mental condition
moderated, but did not eliminate, the need to
consider specific and general deterrence:
It is not uncommon for people with similar
mental conditions to yours to be involved in
litigation. Unless limits are set, and
consequences are imposed for contravention
of those limits, the system of justice in
particular cases may become unworkable and
be open to ridicule.8
Taking into account the above considerations,
Mr Slaveski's prior convictions (though none
were for contempt), and the fact that he was
serving a suspended sentence when the contempt
was committed, Whelan J imposed a term of
imprisonment of two months. His Honour
indicated that if Mr Slaveski had not suffered
from a mental condition, the term of
imprisonment would have been "substantial".9
Mr Slaveski was also ordered to pay the costs of
the proceeding on an indemnity basis, and that
should he default in payment, he be imprisoned
for a further month.
Page 4
Further Information
1
R v Slaveski [2011] VSC 643; R v Slaveski [2012] VSC
7.
2
R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7, [5] (Whelan J).
3
R v Slaveski [2011] VSC 643, [18].
4
Ibid [19], citing Attorney-General (NSW) v Dean
(1990) 20 NSWLR 650, 655–6 and Attorney-General
(Vic) v Rich [1998] VSC 41, [16].
5
R v Slaveski [2011] VSC 643, [22].
6
Ibid [153].
7
R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7, [14], citing R v Verdins
[2007] VSCA 102.
8
R v Slaveski [2012] VSC 7, [25].
9
Ibid [30].
For further information or legal advice, please
contact:
Stephen Lee, Assistant Victorian Government
Solicitor, Litigation & Dispute Resolution on
8684 0410 or [email protected]
Antonio Mazzone, Managing Principal
Solicitor on 8684 0418 or
[email protected]
Belinda Trevean, Managing Principal Solicitor
on 8684 0415 or
[email protected]
David Ryan, Managing Principal Solicitor
on 8684 0417 or [email protected]
Daniel Jones, Senior Solicitor
on 8684 0456 or [email protected]