Slaveski v The Queen (on the application of the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of Victoria)

(2012) 40 VR 1; [2012] VSCA 48

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Contempt of court
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Refusal of adjournment
5. › Whether denial of natural justice where accused deprived himself of legal representation by own conduct
6. › Whether trial judge erred in refusing adjournment
1. Criminal Law
2. › Contempt of court
3. › Appeal against conviction
4. › Abandonment of appeal
5. › Whether applicant could reinstate appeal after counsel abandoned on instructions
6. › Whether counsel acted contrary to instructions
1. Criminal Law
2. › Contempt of court
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Imprisonment in default of payment of costs
5. › Whether trial judge erred in imposing fixed term of imprisonment in default of payment of indemnity costs
6. › Whether pre-emptive sentencing for possible future contempt
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Apprehended bias
3. › Whether warning about bench warrant amounted to apprehended bias
4. › Whether refusal to provide security films amounted to apprehended bias
5. › Whether refusal to allow break for medication amounted to apprehended bias
6. › Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
7. › Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337

Quick Take

A court exercising the power to grant or refuse an adjournment during a trial acts in a judicial capacity and is not a 'public authority' under s 4(1)(j) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). A trial judge's refusal to adjourn proceedings will not constitute a denial of natural justice where the accused has by his own conduct deprived himself of legal representation. A fixed term of imprisonment in default of payment of costs in contempt proceedings is impermissible as it pre-emptively sentences for a possible future contempt and deprives the successful party of its costs award.