By any measure, acting as Mr Slaveski's litigation guardian without legal representation was always going to be a difficult task for Mrs Slaveska. She had to conduct a large and complex trial over several months virtually on her own. She had to read a large number of documents; to prepare detailed questions for 17 of her own witnesses as well as for 40 defence witnesses, which included 34 experienced police officers and three experts; to learn the rules of evidence and trial procedures; and to perform her task in the face of constant outbursts from Mr Slaveski. It is likely that most lay people would have found the burden too onerous and would have given up. To her credit, Mrs Slaveska had the courage to persevere and she worked tirelessly in the pursuit of Mr Slaveski's claims. I have no doubt that no other lay advocate could have done a better job in presenting his case.
Although Ms Slaveska's energy and determination resulted in a robust - and sometimes feisty - presentation of Mr Slaveski's case, her lack of legal qualifications and experience inevitably resulted in the hearing progressing in an inefficient and unwieldy manner.
Mrs Slaveska often objected to questions simply because she did not like them or because Mr Slaveski asked her to do so. In cross-examination, she frequently asked questions which were irrelevant, repetitious or mere assertions. Some questions were aimed at embarrassing the police defendants, rather than at eliciting relevant evidence from them. Some purported questions contained not-so-subtle threats that the witness would be sued, notwithstanding my prior warnings that the making of such threats was highly improper. Mrs Slaveska put matters to witnesses without any factual foundation and irresponsibly accused all but four of the 40 witnesses she cross-examined of lying to the Court.
Mrs Slaveska sometimes became argumentative when I made rulings against her. She also made repeat applications on matters upon which I had already ruled. On some occasions, she was a mere mouthpiece for Mr Slaveski. That is not to say, however, that Mrs Slaveska failed to exercise independent judgement; not infrequently, she motioned for Mr Slaveski to be quiet or put aside handwritten notes that he had given to her without referring to their contents.
The agreed time limits for the completion of Mrs Slaveska's cross-examination of witnesses always afforded her more time than she reasonably required. Nonetheless, on several occasions, Mrs Slaveska failed to complete the cross-examination of a witness within the agreed time limit because she became obsessed with the pursuit of peripheral credit issues. When I sought to enforce the deadline, she would complain that 'it's not fair'. Mrs Slaveska appeared to be of the view that 'fairness' required that she be allowed to keep a witness in the witness box for as long as it suited her. Invariably, on these occasions, I extended the deadline to enable her to ask additional questions. I also agreed to recall some witnesses at her request.
Some hearing days were lost when Mr or Mrs Slaveski informed the Court, on the morning of the relevant day, that Mrs Slaveska was ill or that their teenaged son was ill and that she was required to stay at home to care for him. Although I explained to Mrs Slaveska that an application for an adjournment on medical grounds had to be supported by more than a one-line medical certificate, she continued to rely on such certificates to justify her absences from the Court. These absences caused inconvenience to the Court and to the defendants, their legal practitioners and their witnesses. They also added to the already considerable delays in the resolution of the proceeding.
In addition, much time was wasted because Mrs Slaveska regularly arrived at the Court well past the scheduled time of commencement for the hearing. This included days when, at her request, the hearing had been scheduled to commence earlier than usual.
Unfortunately, on many occasions, the hearing degenerated into a farce, with Mr Slaveski shouting and otherwise behaving inappropriately, Mrs Slaveska making speeches 'for the record' and witnesses looking on in disbelief. On these occasions, my priority was to restore order, usually by removing Mr Slaveski from the Court. I would then remind Mrs Slaveska about the proper conduct of the proceeding, and press on with the trial.
The requirement in r 15.02(3) of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic) that a litigation guardian must act by a solicitor has much to commend it. I waived that requirement in this proceeding because, had I not done so, the likely result would have been an order that the proceeding be stayed and Mr Slaveski would have been deprived of his right to have his claims tested in the Court.[136]