Blackler v The King - [2025] NZHC 658

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2024-485-000077

[2025] NZHC 658

BETWEEN
SEAN ANTHONY BLACKLER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 27 February 2025

Counsel:

Appellant in person

M J R Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

26 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J

(Appeal against Conviction)

An appeal against conviction for possession of methamphetamine and a pipe

[1] Following a Judge-alone trial in the District Court,1 Sean Blackler was convicted of one charge of possession of a class A controlled drug (methamphetamine)2 and one charge of possession of a pipe.3 Mr Blackler now appeals those convictions.

1      R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 16506 [Judgment under appeal].
2      Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, s 7(1)(a) and (2); maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of $1,000.
3      Section 13(1)(a) and (3); maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or a fine of $500 or both.

BLACKLER v R [2025] NZHC 658 [26 March 2025]

[2] Mr Blackler represented himself in the District Court and on this appeal. In his notice of appeal, he advances the following grounds:

(a)Abuse of police process.

(b)That critical disclosure was not provided.

(c)That there were breaches of legal privilege and standards by his previous lawyers.

[3] The Crown submits that, across the wide range of material filed, Mr Blackler’s grounds of appeal can be distilled into the following areas:

(a)The Judge erred in her assessment of the evidence, such that there was a real risk the outcome of the trial may have been affected. In particular, Mr Blackler considers that the Judge erred in being satisfied that:

(i)the substance located was methamphetamine; and

(ii)the methamphetamine was in his possession.

(b)The non-disclosure of certain information (an irregularity affecting the trial) has led to a miscarriage of justice.

(c)The police investigation was an abuse of process, which affected the search warrant that led to the charges against him (and thus the totality of the evidence), meaning it was a miscarriage of justice that he was charged at all.

(d)Mr Blackler has also raised concerns about his previous lawyers (prior to representing himself).

Background and procedural history

[4] The police obtained a production order for Mr Blackler’s phone and search warrant for his property in respect of alleged drug dealing. The latter was executed on 22 December 2020. In the course of that search, the methamphetamine (0.86 grams) and glass pipe in question were located, leading to Mr Blackler’s arrest.

[5] In addition to the two charges relating to possession of methamphetamine and the pipe, Mr Blackler was originally charged with cultivation of cannabis4 and possession of cannabis for supply.5 The Crown subsequently withdrew these charges as the cannabis seized was inadvertently destroyed.6

[6] Throughout the proceeding, Mr Blackler challenged the search warrant. The application for the search warrant was based nearly entirely on informant information.7 Mr Blackler sought unredacted disclosure of the search warrant and production order applications. On 25 July 2022, Judge Davidson dismissed Mr…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Blackler v The King

Details

AGLC: Blackler v The King [2025] NZHC 658
Case: [2025] NZHC 658
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Blackler v The King involves an appeal against a conviction for possession of methamphetamine and a pipe. Sean Anthony Blackler, the appellant, was convicted following a trial in the District Court. The appeal to the High Court of New Zealand focuses on the assessment of evidence, disclosure issues, and allegations of police misconduct. The court was required to determine if there was an error in the Judge's assessment of the evidence, whether non-disclosure led to a miscarriage of justice, and if there was an abuse of process by the police. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the evidence presented, including the credibility of witnesses and the admissibility of the search warrant. The court found that the Judge's assessment of the evidence was correct and that there was no miscarriage of justice due to non-disclosure or police misconduct. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders