Slavich v Judicial Conduct Commissioner

[2014] NZHC 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-40 [2014] NZHC 14

IN THE MATTER             of s 4 of the Judicature Amendment Act

1972

IN THE MATTER             of an application for judicial review

BETWEEN  JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH Applicant

ANDJUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER

First Respondent

GEOFFREY JOHN VENNING, RHYS HARRISON, PATRICIA COURTNEY AND DAVID BRIAN COLLINS Second Respondents

Hearing:                   On the papers

Judgment:                23 January 2014

JUDGMENT OF BROWN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 January 2014 at 4.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copy To:       J Slavich, Hamilton

SLAVICH v JUDICIAL CONDUCT COMMISSIONER [2014] NZHC 14 [23 January 2014]

[1]      The Registrar has referred to me as Duty Judge an ex parte application by Mr Slavich for leave to institute proceedings seeking judicial review of a decision of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner.

[2]      In a judgment of the High Court dated 27 March 20131 Mr Slavich was held to be a vexatious litigant.   Mr Slavich was declared vexatious because on several occasions he had instituted proceedings in which he had made immoderate and scandalous allegations without any proper basis for doing so.  The Court ordered that Mr Slavich was not to institute any civil proceedings in any court without leave.

[3]      Since the judgment of 27 March 2013 Mr Slavich has made complaints to the Judicial Complaints Commissioner about several judges on a number of occasions. On each occasion the Judicial Complaints Commissioner has informed Mr Slavich that the Commissioner’s jurisdiction is limited to reviewing judicial conduct and does not extend to reviewing the actual decisions made by judges.

[4]      Mr Slavich now seeks leave under s 88B of the Judicature Act 1908 to institute judicial review proceedings.  In the judicial review proceedings he seeks to review the decision of the Judicial Complaints Commissioner contained in a letter dated 7 October 2013 dismissing complaints by Mr Slavich against each of Venning, Harrison, Courtney and Collins JJ.

[5]      Section 88B(2) provides:

Leave may be granted subject to such conditions (if any) as the Court or Judge thinks fit and shall not be granted unless the Court or Judge is satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of the process of the Court and that there is prima facie ground for the proceeding.

[6]      I have reviewed the Statememt (sic) of Claim for Judicial Review dated

6 January 2014 which Mr Slavich seeks leave to pursue.  In my assessment neither the  first  nor  the  second  causes  of  action  disclose  a  reasonably  arguable  claim.

Consequently I am not satisfied that there is a prima facie ground for the proceeding.

1      Attorney-General v Slavich [2013] NZHC 627.

[7]      The proposed proceeding appears to be a continuation of an evolving cycle of applications for leave to institute proceedings under s 88B(2) whereby, consequent upon a refusal of leave under s 88B(2), a complaint is then made to the Judicial Complaints Commissioner.  When the complaint to the Commissioner is dismissed, a new s 88B(2) application is then made for leave to institute judicial review proceedings in respect of such dismissal.  By that mechanism Mr Slavich seeks to have the High Court revisit the substance of the previous leave application even though the provision in s 88B(3) that there be no appeal from an order refusing leave signals that a decision declining leave is intended to be final.

[8]      Having  regard  both  to  my  view  that  the  pleading  does  not  disclose  a reasonably arguable claim and to my perception that the present application for leave is a continuation of what appears to me to be a cycle of such applications, I am not satisfied that the proceeding is not an abuse of the process of the Court.

[9]      Leave to bring the judicial review proceedings is refused.

Brown J