Hartley v The King - [2025] NZSC 91

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 16/2023
[2025] NZSC 91

BETWEEN	PETER JOHN HARTLEY Applicant
AND	THE KING Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, Ellen France and Kós JJ
Counsel:	J W Griffiths for Applicant T R Simpson for Respondent
Judgment:	29 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

In 2011, Mr Hartley stood trial on 19 counts of sexual offending and one count of making an intimate visual recording. The Crown alleged that from approximately 1997 to 2008, he groomed teenagers with money, work opportunities, cigarettes, alcohol, food and internet access before committing the acts alleged in the indictment. His defence in respect of some counts alleging indecencies against young persons was that the complainant was older than 16 at the time the conduct occurred. Other allegations he denied altogether.
A jury found him guilty of 18 counts of sexual offending—one count of rape and 17 of indecencies against young persons—as well as the count of making an intimate visual recording.[1] It acquitted him of one count of indecent assault. The Judge sentenced Mr Hartley to preventive detention with a minimum period of imprisonment of seven years.[2]
[1]Under the Crimes Act 1961, ss 128(1)(a), 134(2)(a), 134(3), 140A(1)(a) and 216H.
[2]R v Hartley HC Wellington CRI-2010-085-4305, 29 March 2012 (Williams J) at [61]–[62].
He appealed all 19 convictions and his sentence to the Court of Appeal, leaving—‍as that Court put it—‍“no ground untraversed”.[3] The conviction appeal grounds included trial counsel error, prosecutorial misconduct and judicial error (including as to non-recusal for apparent bias). A number of the verdicts were said to be unreasonable. The Court of Appeal however dismissed the conviction appeal. The sentence appeal succeeded, and a sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment (with a minimum period of seven years) was substituted.

Proposed appeal and submissions

[3]Hartley v R [2014] NZCA 162 (Miller, Goddard and Clifford JJ) [CA judgment] at [2].

Mr Hartley now seeks leave to appeal approximately 10 years out of time. In total, he advances 16 proposed grounds. These largely reprise the arguments made in the Court of Appeal.
He submits that the proposed grounds reveal a risk of a substantial miscarriage of justice having occurred,[4] and they involve three issues of general or public importance:[5] the proper approach to an appeal based on unreasonable verdict, as distinct from the approach to a dismissal application;[6] the ingredients of an indecency offence; and the correct approach to the appearance of bias on behalf of a judge presiding over a jury trial.
[4]See Senior Courts Act 2016, s 74(2)(b).
[5]See s 74(2)(a).
[6]See Crimes Act, s 347 and Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 147. The Court of Appeal referred to the Judge’s decision on a s 347 dismissal application in its analysis of one of…

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 Hartley v The King

Details

AGLC: Hartley v The King [2025] NZSC 91
Case: [2025] NZSC 91
Decision Date: 29 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, Mr. Peter John Hartley applied for an extension of time to appeal his convictions and sentence, which were upheld by the Court of Appeal in 2014. Mr. Hartley was convicted of multiple counts of sexual offences and making an intimate visual recording, for which he was sentenced to preventive detention with a minimum of seven years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Mr. Hartley's appeal against his convictions, but substituted the sentence with 14 years' imprisonment with a minimum of seven years. Mr. Hartley now seeks leave to appeal on various grounds, including alleged trial counsel error, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial error, and alleged miscarriage of justice, approximately ten years out of time. The court was required to decide whether the delay in applying for leave to appeal was justified, and whether the criteria for leave were met.

The court found that the delay in applying for leave to appeal was inordinate, and Mr. Hartley had not provided a cogent explanation for the delay. The court also found that the criteria for leave were not met, as the proposed appeal did not raise any matter of general or public importance. The court was not persuaded by Mr. Hartley's contention that there was insufficient evidential foundation for the jury's verdicts. The court further found that the proposed new evidence did not raise an apparent risk of miscarriage of justice. Finally, the court saw no appearance of error in the Court of Appeal's analysis of the alleged errors said to emanate from trial counsel, prosecution counsel, and the Judge.

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders