Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen - [2017] NZSC 72

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 72

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:	16 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for recall is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Mr Marteley sought leave to appeal directly to this Court against his conviction for murder following the entry of a plea of guilty. The Court dismissed his application.[1]
[1]Marteley v R [2017] NZSC 31.
Since that decision was delivered, Mr Marteley has written to the Registrar of the Court raising various concerns about the Court’s decision. The Court has decided to treat this correspondence as an application to recall the Court’s judgment.

Mr Marteley has raised nothing new in this further material which would justify recalling the judgment. Accordingly, the application for recall is dismissed.

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Todd Aaron Marteley v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] NZSC 72
Decision Date: 16 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Todd Aaron Marteley, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, following his guilty plea. The case was heard by William Young, Arnold, and Ellen France JJ in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Marteley, representing himself, was opposed by counsel for the respondent, the Crown. The central issue before the court was whether the original judgment dismissing Marteley's application for leave to appeal should be recalled. This decision followed a previous dismissal of Marteley's direct appeal application to the Supreme Court.

The legal question that the court had to address was whether there were any new grounds or significant errors in the original judgment that warranted a recall. Marteley had argued that there were issues with the court's handling of his case, but the court found no merit in his claims. The Supreme Court concluded that Marteley had not presented any new arguments or evidence that would justify a reconsideration of the original decision. The court emphasised that the dismissal of the appeal was based on the merits of the case, and there were no grounds for altering the judgment.

In dismissing the application for recall, the court reiterated its earlier findings and held that the original judgment remained valid. The Supreme Court found that Marteley had not provided any valid reasons for the court to revisit its decision. The court's reasoning was based on the absence of new material or significant errors in the original judgment that could alter the outcome. Consequently, the application for recall was dismissed, and the conviction for murder stood. The court did not issue any further orders beyond the dismissal of the recall application.

Orders