Lyttelton v Police - [2016] NZHC 22

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE

DATABASE, UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-889

[2016] NZHC 22

UNDER the Judicature Amendment Act 1972

BETWEEN

MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON

Applicant

AND

THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE

First Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Second Respondent

AND

MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS

Interested Party

Hearing: 28 October 2015

Appearances:

Applicant in person

R McCoubrey and K Lawson-Bradshaw for first and second respondents

S Grieve QC for interested party

Judgment:

26 January 2016

JUDGMENT OF KATZ J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 January 2016 at 3:00pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Meredith Connell, Auckland
Gilbert/Walker, Auckland Counsel: S Grieve QC, Auckland

Copy to: M V Lyttelton (Applicant)

LYTTELTON v NEW ZEALAND POLICE & ORS [2016] NZHC 22 [26 January 2016]

Introduction

[1] Martin Lyttelton seeks judicial review of certain decisions made by the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections. The relevant decisions were made while Mr Lyttelton was on parole, having served a term of imprisonment for the attempted murder of his former business partner and inflicting grievous bodily harm on his former business partner’s wife.

[2]One of the standard release conditions of Mr Lyttelton’s parole was that:1

The offender must not associate with any specified person, or with persons of any specified class, with whom the probation officer has, in writing, directed the offender not to associate.

[3] Pursuant to that condition, Mr Lyttelton was directed by the Department of Corrections not to associate with his former lawyers, due to concerns that he might pose a risk to their safety. Mr Lyttelton claims that:

(a)Corrections’ decision to make the non-association direction was made in a way that was procedurally unfair.

(b)Both the Police and/or Corrections acted for an improper purpose and, in the case of the Police, were biased.

(c)The Police acted unlawfully in sharing information (some of which was privileged) with Corrections.

[4] I will address each of these issues in turn, after first setting out the relevant factual background.

1 Imposed by statute pursuant to s 14(1)(h) of the Parole Act 2002.

Factual background

The events giving rise to the charges2

[5] Mr Lyttelton was involved in a bitter and long-running dispute with his former business partner, Richard Ord. In March 2008 Mr Lyttelton suffered what, in his view, was a serious setback in his legal proceedings against Mr Ord. At about 9:15 am on 10 April 2008 Mr Lyttelton left home in his car, taking with him a shotgun, a box of cartridges and a hunting knife. He went to Mr Ord’s home and entered via the garage. Mr Ord and his partner, Ms Fenton, were in their home office upstairs. They saw Mr Lyttelton climbing the stairs and shut the office door. Ms Fenton leaned on…

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 Lyttelton v Police 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: [2016] NZHC 22
Decision Date: 26 January 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Martin Victor Lyttelton applied for judicial review of certain decisions made by the New Zealand Police and the Department of Corrections while he was on parole. Lyttelton had been convicted for attempted murder and grievous bodily harm in relation to an incident involving his former business partner and the partner's wife. Lyttelton was subject to a non-association direction as part of his parole conditions, which prohibited him from associating with his former lawyers. Lyttelton argued that the decision to impose the non-association direction was procedurally unfair, that the decision was made for an improper purpose, and that the Police unlawfully shared privileged information with Corrections. The court considered the statutory context, the nature of the decision, and the requirements of natural justice in this case. The court found that the decision-making process was procedurally fair, that there was no evidence of an improper purpose, and that there was nothing improper in the Police sharing information with Corrections. The application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also made an order prohibiting publication of the judgment and any part of the proceedings until final disposition of Lyttelton's retrial.

Orders