The Queen v Slaveski [2015] VSC 416

1 Lupco Slaveski, you were convicted on 12 August 2015 of contempt of court on nine separate occasions. I found you not guilty of contempt of court in respect of three other matters alleged against you. The contempt's of which you have been convicted occurred on 31 August 2012, 19 August, 5 October, 7 October and 15 September 2013, two separate occasions on 5 February, again on 25 February and 11 March 2014.

2 As can be seen, your behaviour and use of abusive, threatening emails has occurred over a lengthy period, being over a year-and-a-half of on-going contemptuous activity. The contempt's proven against you and the evidence constituting those contempt's has been set out in full detail in the judgment of The Queen v Lupco Slaveski.[1] The majority of your contempt's, seven out of the nine, have been committed via emails sent to a variety of people connected with the courts.

3 The two other contempt matters occurred as a result, firstly, of a telephone call made by you to a judge's associate, and another was a contempt in the face of the court before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen. The contempt in the face of courts is undoubtedly a very serious form of contempt, in that you threatened his Honour whilst he was sitting as a judge and stated that you had seen him outside court whilst telling him to back-off your cases, to leave your matters alone. Those words being said by you in an aggressive and menacing tone. The telephone call to the judges associate was threatening to her, in that you made statements to her associate that were meant to be conveyed to the Associate Justice, which is what occurred. You were attempting to place quite improper pressure upon her, to place Associate Justice Daly in fear for her safety, and trying to dissuade her from carrying out the performance of her duties in the impartial manner she has sworn to uphold as an Associate Justice. You commenced your conversation with the statements that "this mess was all her fault, that you held her personally responsible and that she had to fix it". Again, on that occasion you were abusive, loud and aggressive, you talked about the use of guns and the fact that the court was corrupt, words that you deliberately chose to use.

4 The emails that were sent, I shall not go through in detail as I have already discussed them at some length in the decision to which I have referred. But in very short compass, in respect of each of those emails, I found that you did intend to interfere with the course of justice. You particularly wanted these proceedings of contempt against you stopped and that appeared to be one of the major reasons you sent many of the emails. That included the emails to Stephen Lee, in which you threatened him and his personal safety and, even more importantly, threatened sexual assault against his wife, and which I note continued as a theme through your threats to a number of women judges of this court. Justice Kyrou and Justice Whelan were also the subject of threats by you, being matters that could only be described as revenge for the judgments and decisions that you consider not to be in your favour. The language you used towards them was violent, with threats of physical harm and sexual assault upon them as well. Your language was offensive and abusive, with the constant use of swear words in your email communications with almost every person with whom you dealt.

5 I note in respect of that matter, that is, the use of that particularly offensive language, that during your appearance before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen you were able to conduct that appearance without once using an expletive or swear word such as you used in your emails. You were able to conduct the record of interview with Detective Senior Constable White without recourse again to foul language, of the type that you used in your emails, which indicates to me that this is a choice that you make, in that you have demonstrated that you have the ability to control what you say, when you are in a court room or a record of interview and there is no reason why, that ability to control what you say does not apply to your behaviour, when sending emails.

6 In the seven emails, which in my view are of an escalating severity, you refer to all of the judges of the court as corrupt, that they are all conspiring against you. You demand $30 million compensation, again as a constant theme. You threaten to kill individual judges, their staff, their families and behave in a manner that is totally unacceptable. By the time you have come to the last email with which I am dealing, you ended with the line "people always lose with corrupted people but now you don't have to respect me but fear me you dogs".

7 These contempts, and I include all of them, can only be considered to be very serious examples of contempt of court. The staff of the court should not be expected to have to put up with threats of violence against themselves, their family members, and they should not have to put up with foul language directed at them and others. Chief Magistrate Lauritsen in dealing with you in his court was attempting only to send you to the correct judge before whom the matter was listed, but despite that you saw fit to threaten him, to say that you would take his property off him, to tell him to back-off your case, to make it clear to him that he was not safe outside the court, which in my view is exceedingly serious behaviour. His Honour is entitled to go to work and feel that he is safe from threats and intimidation. I regard it as a particularly serious breach of the law of contempt to threaten a judge in this manner in his court.

8 The judges of the Supreme Court are undoubtedly robust, as they deal with a broad spectrum of issues and problems that come before them, but despite the robust nature of the judges, they should not be subjected to such foul abuse and threats of personal harm or sexual assault upon them, harm to their families or even continual allegations of corruption and conspiracies to murder you.

9 As I indicated during sentencing submissions, these are contempts of a very high order that would normally attract very substantial terms of imprisonment. This is not a charge of insulting a judge, or being rude to a judge, or their staff, or the solicitors, these are serious threats to their lives and well-being.

10 You have previously been convicted of a charge of contempt of court. That matter was heard by Whelan J (as he then was) and after a plea he sentenced you to a term of two months' imprisonment for one charge of contempt. The circumstances of that contempt were that in an appearance before Justice Kyrou in June of 2010 you were abusive of the judge and the court, you alleged impropriety, partiality and corruption against both the presiding judge and the court and you threatened the presiding judge and disrupted the proceedings. Justice Whelan found that you acted in that manner intentionally and with the intention that your actions would interfere with or obstruct the administration of justice.

11 Although I do not have the affidavits tendered during your hearing and on your plea by your wife and yourself in which extensive material was given as to your psychiatric history, his Honour made some findings in respect of your mental health at that time, being late December 2011. His Honour had had the advantage of hearing a number of the psychiatrists and psychologists give evidence during your trial and was able to come to a considered view in respect of your mental health. I have been presented with a large number of those same reports and his Honour's findings are very helpful. His Honour's sentencing remarks also confirms, to a degree, the material presented to me by Mrs Slaveska, your wife, as to your background history in terms of your personal circumstances and I adopt what his Honour has to say and I will repeat briefly those matters.

12 His Honour found, and it is not disputed, that you were born on 20 March 1963 in Macedonia. You migrated to Australia in 1977 when you were aged 14 with your parents and two brothers. You left school at the age of 16 and commenced working in the music industry, and your wife described you as "a very famous and successful DJ and music entertainer", working in nightclubs until 1996/97, when on my understanding you would have been approximately 33. You met your wife Mrs Snezana Slaveska in 1992 in Macedonia, where you married and later moved to Australia where you had your family; a daughter in 1994, a second daughter in 1995 and in 1997 your third child a son. You and your wife are now separated, although she does appear to be very supportive of you. She has been present at all hearings, usually with your daughter, and has tried to assist you and your cause if it was at all possible.

13 In 1996/1997 you commenced a business, initially from home, selling and repairing electrical appliances, opening a shop later in 1997. According to the submissions from Mrs Slaveska, by the year 2000 you had three electrical shops and a ladies clothing shop. In 2000, your wife claims that you were assaulted by police and the history of your litigation and concerns with the police and then the court commenced at that time.

14 In 2006 you were placed upon the disability support pension. It would appear that your health started to deteriorate in 2000, with your wife stating that you were on medication such as Xanax, aropax, Valium and Diazepam from that time onwards, and equally had problems in respect of your heart and were under the attention of a cardiologist, Dr John Williams. Unfortunately, as Justice Whelan stated, you attribute this and your own ill-health, that is your loss of your businesses, to what you contend is a sustained campaign conducted against you, firstly by members of the Victoria Police, which has now broadened to include all of the courts from the Magistrates' Court through to the High Court.

15 In regard to your medical complaints, I have received and read the following documents: a report dated 23 January 2009 from Shalika Ranaweera; an email addressed to Supreme Court, Justice Kyrou dated Monday, 21 September 2009 from Shalika Ranaweera; a report addressed to County Court, her Honour Judge Douglas dated 6 November 2009 from Shalika Ranaweera; a report from the Plaza Clinic Lalor from Dr GS Duggal dated 16 November 2009; a report from Dr RW Farnbach dated 30 November 2009; a letter addressed to Dr Duggal from Dr M John Williams cardiologist dated 23 May 2005; a report dated Monday 5 December 2011 from Shalika Ranaweera, psychologist; a report dated 16 September 2012 from Wichai Limpipatasnasopon Khun, confirming that you received acupuncture for neck pain on that date; a report from Dr Stephen H Allnutt psychiatrist dated 2 October 2012; a report from Northern Health Emergency Department, Benjamin Lui, Emergency Physician dated 6 March 2013; a report from the Plaza Clinic Lalor from Dr GS Duggal dated 25 June 2013; a report from Dr RW Farnbach psychiatrist dated 22 August 2013; a document in a foreign language to which is affixed a certificate purporting to be a translation from Macedonian into English dated 3 July 2014 from a Dr Deni Razmoski which reads as follows:

Private Medical Institution in General Medicine Dr Marina Cvetanoskr; Dr Deni Razmoski Boulevard Turisticka No. 30.

Patient Slaveski Ljupco

diagnosis bipolar effective disorder.

The patient has reported several times and has been treated by Dr Marina Cvetanoskr and Dr Deni Razmoski with panic attacks, nervousness, non-communicative and on several occasions disoriented in time and space.

During the acute attacks he has been taking AMP, Diazepam I.M.

Several times he has received a therapy for HTA.

He needs to visit a psychiatrist.

And finally a report dated 27 October 2014 from Dr RW Farnbach psychiatrist. Those documents were provided to me by your wife, Snezana Slaveska.

16 The situation in respect of the medical reports indicates that your troubles, in your view, commenced in September 2000, when you said you were assaulted by police who invaded your audio visual shop in Lalor. From that time, you have given up the shops and you were described as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and panic disorder. You claimed that as a result of that assault back in 2000, you were in a constant state of anxiety, experiencing flashbacks, fear and dread for yourself and your family. Looking at the materials presented as I indicated, it does not appear that there has been any improvement whatsoever from that very early assessment of your health.

17 Justice Whelan, in imposing sentence in respect of your previous contempt stated:

1. Your own affidavit and the affidavit of your wife refer extensively to your psychiatric history. There were a number of reports tendered and oral evidence was also given in the course of the trial on this issue. One of the psychiatrists who gave evidence at the trial, Dr Farnbach, has prepared an updated report which is exhibited to your affidavit.
2. On the evidence before me, I conclude that you suffer from a mental disturbance involving, among other things, very significant anxiety. One psychiatrist, Dr Sullivan, considers that you suffer from a delusional disorder; another, Dr Farnbach, is of the opinion that you meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder. Ms Ranaweera, a psychologist, has also diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder. Both Dr Farnbach and Dr Duggal consider that there will be, or may be, deterioration in your psychiatric condition if you are imprisoned.
3. I am satisfied that at the time of your offence you suffered from a mental disorder or abnormality or impairment of mental function, and that you still do so. It does not matter how that condition is to be categorised. It was a condition which impaired your ability to exercise appropriate judgment.
4. In accordance with applicable authority my conclusion is that your mental condition was such that it reduces your moral culpability, it has a bearing on the kind of sentence to be imposed, it moderates without eliminating the need for general deterrence and specific deterrence, it means that a sentence of imprisonment will weigh more heavily on you than on others, and there is a risk of an adverse effect on your mental health if imprisonment is imposed on you.

18 I agree with his Honour's findings in respect of your mental health.

19 However, unlike the situation before Justice Whelan, there has been no attempt by you to mitigate your contempts. There have been no apologies, or attempts at apology and in fact it would appear that your behaviour has continued unabated.

20 I received as Exhibit 1 on your plea the eighth further affidavit of Daniel Quentin Jones dated 13 August 2015, in which he swore that since the proceeding commenced on 23 August 2013 up until the date of the swearing of the affidavit, he was aware of between 40-50 emails being sent by you which have contained threats or were abusive in their content. A selection of nine emails were produced as examples. I will just take one, that is an email addressed to all High Court judges dated 22 May 2015, in which again there are abusive comments, abusive language, references to judges as mother fuckers, bitches and words of that nature. The same language being directed towards the Registrar of the High Court, a tipstaff of the Supreme Court and threats that all of those persons have to do what he wishes, or there will be serious consequences including deaths.

21 What is apparent from that simple example is that nothing has changed for you Mr Slaveski. Despite these proceedings being underway, you continued to write abusive, aggressive, threatening and demanding emails to associates, judges and the courts. You did not learn from the previous contempt charge of which you were found guilty and I doubt very much if you will learn from these charges for which you have been found guilty.

22 I have seen a report from Dr Danny Sullivan, psychiatrist, in which he refers to you having fixed and rigid views which are not amenable to logical persuasion. I have to agree; that is apparent from your obsessional behaviour in respect of these matters over the years. Despite your fixed and rigid views and the mental health situation behind them, both general and specific deterrence continue to play a role.

23 You are a declared vexatious litigant. You are not the only declared vexatious litigant, there are quite a few, and there are others who have not necessarily reached the stage of being declared vexatious. However, they are persons who often also have fixated views. It is, as Justice Whelan said, most unfortunate but equally not uncommon, for people with similar mental conditions such as yours to become involved in litigation. It is important that the courts do set the boundaries as to what will be tolerated, even by those who have some form of mental health issues. Without that, the system of justice would become unworkable. The courts would be consistently held up to ridicule, the staff would be subjected to intolerable stress and even judges, robust as they may be, may find themselves placed under such fear and stress that they may become unable to carry out their proper judicial function, without fear or favour. Persons coming to work in an environment such as the courts or those in a solicitor's office who are involved in litigation in the courts, should not be confronted or expected to put up with behaviour of this type which threatens their physical and mental wellbeing.

24 You have previously been sentenced in respect of a matter of contempt for which you served a 2 month term of imprisonment. You also have a prior conviction for stalking and threat to kill which was heard as a four day trial in the Magistrates' Court in July and August of 2007, you appealed the conviction and sentence and that appeal was struck out in the County Court. You received a sentence of six months' imprisonment to be served by way of intensive correction order for the offences.

25 You were aware, and remain aware, of the consequences of your actions. Despite having fixed and rigid views as to what has occurred, it is clear that you can moderate your language and your behaviour if you so desire, as is shown in the two occasions to which I referred earlier, when you were being recorded before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen and in the record of interview with Senior Detective White. Whilst your moral culpability is reduced, the offending is of such a high level that general deterrence and specific deterrence, in your case, still remain substantial factors.

26 I also have to take into account denunciation, current sentencing practices and, accordingly, I have read and considered the following cases: R v Slaveski,[2] R v Vasiliou,[3] Rich v Attorney General for the State of Victoria,[4] Moore-McQuillan v The Registrar of the Supreme Court (South Australia)[5] and R v Bonacci.[6] The latter case of Bonacci was three charges of contempt heard in the absence of Mr Bonacci. He did not appear during the trial nor made submissions on the issue of penalty. His contempts consisted of a posting by him on Facebook, statements made on an internet radio broadcast the day after the Facebook matter and seven emails sent by Bonacci to officers of the County Court on occasions in November and December 2013. In the Facebook posting and the interview, he had exhorted others to make improper contact with Judge Chettle of the County Court in order to influence Judge Chettle and the County Court in the proceedings that were then on foot. His Honour found that it was a campaign over a period of seven weeks directed to a specific aim of pressuring a County Court judge not to proceed with criminal charges against individuals. His Honour stated:[7]

It is of the highest importance that our courts be free to administer justice independently, objectively and impartially, and free from any improper external influences and interference. It is that principle that distinguishes, and demarcates, our courts from those in countries which do not afford to their citizens the democratic rights and freedoms enjoyed by citizens of this country. Taking into account the matters that I have referred to, the conduct of the respondent was, accordingly, particularly grave. If courts were to display any tolerance towards such conduct, our system would be readily degraded, and the rights of citizens in this country would be substantially diminished.

In the Bonacci case he had no prior convictions. He apologised and his Honour took the view that his conduct may, at least to some extent, have been mitigated by him having a mental disorder or impairment and sentenced the respondent to a total of 6 weeks' imprisonment.

27 I have considered the issue of totality, your personal circumstances, your lack of remorse, the impact each contempt had upon the due administration of justice, which I determined was none in the circumstances I am considering. That does not mean that it did not have an impact upon each of the persons who were the subject of the threats, abuse or vitriol, that you either said or wrote. I take into account that you had already been charged by way of originating process at the time that you were involved in the later contempts, which goes to the issue of remorse and rehabilitation. I believe you have exceedingly poor prospects of rehabilitation in light of your inability to view any factual circumstance from anything other than your totally fixed, rigid, biased viewpoint.

28 Balancing all the matters to which I have referred, you shall be committed to prison in respect of these offences in the following terms. I shall refer to each of the matters by the charge number in my judgment so that there will be no misapprehension as to what penalties I am imposing for what conduct.

Charge 4 - the telephone call of 31 August 2012. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a term of 4 months.

Charge 5 - In respect of your appearance on 19 August 2013 before Chief Magistrate Lauritsen, you are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

Charge 6 - The email of 5 October 2013 sent to Stephen Lee. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 2 months.

Charge 7 - the sending of an email to Stephen Lee on 7 October 2013. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

Charge 8 - an email on 15 September 2013 to Kayla Martin, Associate to Justice Williams. You are to be committed to imprisonment for 4 months.

Charge 9 - an email of 5 February 2014 to Viv Macgillivray. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 6 months.

Charge 10 - a later email on 5 February 2014 to Viv Macgillivray and others. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 3 months.

Charge 11 - an email on 25 February 2014 sent to Kayla Martin. You are to be committed to imprisonment for 6 months.

Charge 12 - an email on 11 March 2014 sent to Kayla Martin. You are to be committed to imprisonment for a period of 9 months.

I will allow some period of concurrency, but there must be an expectation that there will be significant accumulation as this behaviour continued on and on accordingly. I declare that charge 12 will be the base sentence and direct that one month of the sentence on charge 4, 3 months of the sentence on charge 5, 3 months of the charge on charge 7, 1 month of the sentence on charge 8, 2 months of the sentence on charge 9, 1 month of the sentence on charge 10 and 3 months of the sentence on charge 11 are to be served cumulatively upon each other and upon charge 12. Making a total of 23 months' imprisonment, and I declare that you are to serve a minimum of 15 months before becoming eligible for parole.

Declare that but for your mental health condition, the sentence imposed would have been at least double.

In relation to costs. I award costs, but not on an indemnity basis.

Committal Warrant is granted to both The Australian Federal Police and Victoria Police by the reason of Mr Slaveski being out of the country.

[2] [2012] VSC 7.

[3] [2012] VSC 242.

[4] [1999] VSCA 14.

[5] [2009] SASC 265.

[6] [2015] VSC 134.