Convicted of fraud nearly twenty years ago, Hamilton accountant John Kenneth Slavich’s attempts to bring a private prosecution alleging he was wrongly convicted because of lies told by a witness foundered because of strict rules governing the burden of proof for perjury. Conviction for perjury requires evidence from at least two different sources.
In 2006, Slavich was convicted on charges involving fraudulent mortgage transactions; sentenced to 27 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay $60,000 in reparations.
He has always protested his innocence.
One of the frauds centred on a $75,000 loan secured over a Morrinsville property with part of the proceeds paid across to a company associated with Slavich. Owner of the Morrinsville property knew nothing of the transaction carried out in his name.
At trial, Slavich claimed he believed at all times that he was acting on behalf of the real owner, having met him at a Burger King restaurant. The trial judge ruled that Slavich must have known that the person he met was a Mr Leslie Orchard, impersonating the true owner and a major participant in the two frauds.
A 2020 Stuff investigation later threw doubt on how many people were present at this meeting, a critical issue at the earlier criminal trial.
Buoyed by this investigation, Slavich initiated a private criminal prosecution against Mr Orchard for perjury, alleging he lied at the criminal trial some fourteen years previously.
Criminal Procedure Act requires private criminal prosecutions be filtered, with a District Court judge reviewing the proposed evidence to ensure there is sufficient evidence to warrant a trial.
Slavich’s application was rejected.
In the High Court, Justice Becroft ruled Slavich’s application was rejected for the wrong reasons, but the proposed private criminal prosecution could still not proceed.
Convictions for perjury require corroborating evidence. Slavich himself alleges Mr Orchard committed perjury, but more than evidence from one witness is required. And this evidence must come form those knowing first-hand whether Mr Orchard’s gave false evidence.
Conversations written up by the Stuff journalist do not suffice. These statements are hearsay evidence; second-hand evidence, being what the journalist heard from someone else.
First-person evidence is preferred as the best source of truth.
Justice Becroft suggested Slavich might consider two alternatives: ask Police to re-open their investigation; or request an investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission.
Slavich v. Hamilton District Court – High Court (28.05.25)
25.129