Blackler v The King - [2024] NZHC 1248

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CRI-2024-485-028

[2024] NZHC 1248

BETWEEN
SEAN ANTHONY BENNETT BLACKLER

Appellant

AND

THE KING

Respondent

Hearing: 15 May 2024

Appearances:

Appellant in person

M J R Blaschke for Respondent

Judgment:

17 May 2024

JUDGMENT OF GRAU J

[Pre-trial appeal]

Introduction

[1] Mr Sean Blackler faces a Judge-alone trial (JAT) on 24 June 2024 on one charge each of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a pipe.1 He appeals a pre-trial decision of Judge Harrop in the Wellington District Court ruling evidence admissible at his trial. The evidence was obtained following the execution of a search warrant by Police on 22 December 2020 at Mr Blackler’s home.2

1 Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, ss 7(1)(a) and (2) (maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or
$1,000 fine or both); and Misuse of Drugs Act, ss 13(1)(a) and (3) (maximum penalty of one year’s imprisonment or $500 fine or both) respectively. Mr Blacker originally also faced a cultivation of cannabis charge which has since been withdrawn by Police; see R v Blackler DC Wellington CRI-2020-085-2747, 2 April 2024 (Minute of Judge P A Hobbs).
2 R v Blackler [2024] NZDC 4754 (Reserved Judgment of Judge S M Harrop: Challenges to Admissibility of Evidence obtained on Execution of Search Warrant) [Decision on Appeal]; R v Blackler [2022] NZDC 14114 (Oral decision of Judge B Davidson: Application for disclosure) [Decision of Judge Davidson].

BLACKLER v R [2024] NZHC 1248 [17 May 2024]

[2] Because this is a pre-trial appeal, Mr Blackler requires leave, which is opposed by the Crown. The Crown position is that any appeal is better heard following the JAT.

Jurisdiction for the appeal

[3] There is a preliminary jurisdictional issue. Mr Blackler originally elected trial by jury, when he was also facing a charge of cultivation of cannabis. The pre-trial decision of Judge Harrop that is the subject of this application (and a prior pre-trial decision of Judge Davidson declining disclosure) were conducted on this basis. However, the Crown withdrew the charge of cultivation of cannabis after Judge Harrop’s ruling. Therefore, Mr Blackler no longer faced any charges that could proceed to a jury trial. On 2 April 2024, Judge Hobbs recorded that the matter was to proceed to a JAT.3 Mr Blackler’s notice of appeal against Judge Harrop’s decision was filed after the transfer to a JAT proceeding (on 11 April 2024), making this Court the appropriate appeal Court.4 The matter is now to be treated as if a jury trial had not been elected.5

Background

[4] On 16 December 2020, Police obtained a warrant to search Mr Blackler’s property in Karori. The warrant was almost entirely based on informant information. A month earlier Police had obtained a production order for his phone but the application for the search warrant had made no reference to that. The search warrant was executed on 22 December 2020.6 Police found 1.346 kilograms of cannabis, five cannabis plants,…

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 [2024] NZHC 1248
Case: [2024] NZHC 1248
Decision Date: 17 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Blackler v The King, Sean Anthony Bennett Blackler appeals a pre-trial decision of Judge Harrop in the Wellington District Court, which ruled evidence obtained from a search of his home admissible at his trial. The evidence was obtained following the execution of a search warrant by Police on 22 December 2020. Mr Blackler faces a Judge-alone trial on charges of possession of methamphetamine and possession of a pipe. The appeal concerns the admissibility of the evidence obtained from the search, particularly the failure of the Police to include reference to telecommunications data they had previously obtained and analysed in their warrant application, and the conduct of the search itself.

The court considered whether it was in the interests of justice to grant leave for Mr Blackler to pursue a pre-trial appeal. The Crown opposed the granting of leave, arguing that the appeal was better heard following the trial. The court considered the validity of the search warrant and the manner of execution of the search. The court found that the failure to include reference to the telecommunications data in the warrant application did not have any bearing on the issuance of the warrant. The court also found that the search was conducted lawfully and without any evidence of misconduct by the officers. The court concluded that the appeal did not raise any novel issues or points of law, and that it would be more appropriate to revisit the admissibility of the evidence at trial if relevant evidence emerged.

The court declined to grant leave to appeal the pre-trial ruling of Judge Harrop. The court held that it was not in the interests of justice to do so, given the strength of the Crown’s case and the lack of evidence to support Mr Blackler’s claims of a conspiracy against him. The court also noted that the trial judge would have the opportunity to revisit the admissibility of the evidence if new evidence emerged at trial.

No orders were made as the appeal was dismissed.

Orders