Blackler v The King
[2025] NZCA 389
•5 August 2025 at 11 am
| IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA |
| CA258/2025 |
| BETWEEN | SEAN ANTHONY BLACKLER |
| AND | THE KING |
| Court: | French P, Jagose and Gault JJ |
Counsel: | Applicant in person |
Judgment: | 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
0
3
0