Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen

NOTE: HIGH COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF AJN REMAINS IN FORCE.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 134/2016
[2017] NZSC 83

BETWEEN	TODD AARON MARTELEY Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	William Young, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person C A Brook and A B Richards for Respondent
Judgment:	8 June 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Marteley has applied for a recall of this Court’s judgment refusing his application for leave to appeal against his conviction on a charge of murder following a guilty plea and his consequent sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum period of imprisonment of 14 years.[1] This application follows an earlier unsuccessful application for recall.[2]
[1]Marteley v R [2017] NZSC 31.
[2]Marteley v R [2017] NZSC 72.
The material provided in support of the application raises nothing which would justify recalling our earlier judgment. Mr Marteley’s further application for recall is accordingly dismissed.
We direct the Registrar of the Court not to accept any further application for recall from Mr Marteley in respect of this matter.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Todd Aaron Marteley versus The Queen was heard in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The applicant, Todd Marteley, sought a recall of the Court’s earlier judgment which had refused his application for leave to appeal against his conviction for murder and the subsequent life imprisonment sentence with a minimum of 14 years. This application for recall followed an unsuccessful prior attempt.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether there were any grounds justifying the recall of the earlier judgment which dismissed Marteley's application for leave to appeal. The Court had to determine if the new material presented by Marteley was sufficient to warrant reconsideration of the earlier decision. This required a careful evaluation of the merits and relevance of the new evidence provided by Marteley.

In dismissing the application for recall, the Court found that the new material did not present any valid reasons to revisit the earlier judgment. The Court emphasised that recall applications are to be granted sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances. The Court concluded that there were no exceptional circumstances present in this case. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the Court directed that no further recall applications from Marteley would be accepted regarding this matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established