Blackler v The King

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA258/2025
[2025] NZCA 389

BETWEEN	SEAN ANTHONY BLACKLER Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	French P, Jagose and Gault JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M J R Blaschke for Respondent
Judgment: (On the papers)	5 August 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to bring a second appeal is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French P)

Following a Judge-alone trial before Judge T J Warburton in the District Court, Mr Blackler was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a pipe.[1] He was subsequently fined $250 for the possession of methamphetamine and convicted and discharged on the charge of possession of a pipe.
[1]R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 16505 [verdicts decision].
Mr Blackler appealed the convictions to the High Court. The appeal was dismissed by La Hood J.[2]
[2]Blackler v R [2025] NZHC 658 [first appeal decision].
Dissatisfied with that outcome, Mr Blackler now seeks leave to bring a second appeal in this Court under s 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.
The application for leave is opposed by the Crown.
In order to grant leave, we must be satisfied that Mr Blackler’s proposed appeal involves a matter of general or public importance or that a miscarriage of justice may have occurred or may occur unless the proposed appeal is heard.[3]
[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 237(2).
For the following reasons we have decided that in the circumstances of this case, that threshold has not been met.
Mr Blackler’s central contention is that the prosecution against him is an abuse of process and that the police have covered up a significant miscarriage of justice. In particular, he accuses the police of breaches of their disclosure obligation and of conspiring against him. In addition, he raises issues about alleged counsel errors made at the pre-trial stage which he asserts also led to a miscarriage of justice. Mr Blackler represented himself at trial.
The core allegations made by Mr Blackler against the police have been ventilated in pre-trial decisions in the District Court,[4] and High Court;[5] in rulings during the trial before Judge Warburton;[6] again in Judge Warburton’s verdict judgment following trial;[7] and again by La Hood J on appeal.[8] In all forums, the allegations have been rejected as unfounded and lacking evidence. Mr Blackler’s allegations against his former counsel were considered by La Hood J, who found it “difficult to discern any basis on which it could be alleged that any error has caused a miscarriage of justice”.[9]
[4]R v Blackler [2022] NZDC 14114; and R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 4754.
[5]Blackler v R [2024] NZHC 1248.
[6]R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 14577; and R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 14798.
[7]Verdicts decision, above n 1, at [20]–[25].
[8]First appeal decision, above n 2, at [45]–[51].
[9]At [52].
It is well established that the leave threshold is a particularly high one where success would require this Court to reverse concurrent findings of fact from the courts below.[10] This is particularly so where the trial was Judge-alone, because the applicant has had the benefit of two judgments giving reasons for those factual findings.[11]
[10]Hall v R [2025] NZCA 111 at [5].
[11]R (CA176/2016) v Police [2016] NZCA 403 at [26].
La Hood J’s review of Mr Blackler’s grievances was comprehensive and, in our view, there is no justification for revisiting his findings. The proposed appeal lacks merit and does not raise any question of general or public importance.
The application for leave to bring a second appeal is accordingly declined.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office | Te Tari Ture o te Karauna, Wellington for Respondent

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, the case of Blackler v The King involved Sean Anthony Blackler who sought leave to bring a second appeal against his convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of a pipe, following a District Court trial. The Court of Appeal, consisting of French P, Jagose, and Gault JJ, declined the application for leave, ruling that the threshold for granting such leave had not been met. The appeal was dismissed by La Hood J in the High Court, and the applicant now sought to appeal further to the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the application for leave to bring a second appeal should be granted under section 237(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011. The applicant argued that the prosecution against him was an abuse of process, that the police had covered up a significant miscarriage of justice, and that counsel errors had led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court considered whether the proposed appeal involved a matter of general or public importance or if a miscarriage of justice may have occurred unless the appeal was heard.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr Blackler's allegations had been thoroughly examined and rejected by previous courts. The core allegations against the police and counsel were found to be unfounded and lacking in evidence. The Court held that the leave threshold was particularly high where success would require reversing concurrent findings of fact from the courts below, especially in a Judge-alone trial. The Court found that La Hood J's review of the grievances was comprehensive and that there was no justification for revisiting the findings. Consequently, the Court determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit and did not raise any question of general or public importance.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to bring a second appeal was declined.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established