Lyttelton v The Queen - [2018] NZSC 94

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 59/2018
[2018] NZSC 94

BETWEEN	MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON Applicant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and O’Regan JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person J E L Carruthers for Respondent
Judgment:	16 October 2018

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence
is dismissed.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

The applicant was convicted after a jury trial in the High Court of attempted murder of his former business partner, Richard Ord, causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure to Mr Ord’s partner, Colleen Fenton, and aggravated burglary of the home of Mr Ord and Ms Fenton. Asher J sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of seven years.[1] Mr Lyttelton appealed unsuccessfully to the Court of Appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed.[2] The applicant has served the sentence imposed by Asher J.
[1]R v Lyttelton [2016] NZHC 1041 (Asher J). The applicant had earlier pleaded guilty to the offending and then been sentenced to imprisonment for five years and 11 months: R v Lyttelton HC Auckland CRI-2008-044-9465, 31 March 2010 (Wylie J). In 2014, the Court of Appeal allowed him to withdraw the guilty pleas, set aside the convictions and ordered a retrial: Lyttelton v R [2014] NZCA 638 (Miller, Heath and Clifford JJ).
[2]Lyttelton v R [2018] NZCA 243 (Miller, Ellis and Woolford JJ) [Lyttelton (CA)].
The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision. He wishes to challenge that Court’s finding in relation to both conviction and sentence. The applicant filed extensive submissions in support of his application for leave to appeal (almost four times the 10 page limit set out in r 20 of the Supreme Court Rules 2004).
In relation to his conviction, the applicant argues that the appeal involves matters of general or public importance in that the judgment of the Court of Appeal overturned established precedents and established new precedents. He also argues that a miscarriage of justice will occur unless leave is given, because there were errors of fact and law contained both in the Court of Appeal’s judgment and in the conduct of his High Court trial.
The applicant seeks to advance again the points he raised in the Court of Appeal about the trial Judge’s summing up, all of which were rejected by that Court. In particular, he wishes to argue that the trial Judge ought to have given a detailed direction explaining how intoxication may have affected the mental elements required by the charges he faced.
At the trial, after the summing up had ended, the prosecutor requested that the jury be recalled and that such a direction be given. The prosecutor argued that, without it, the jury was left with an impression that was adverse to the Crown’s case.[3] Both the applicant and the amicus appointed to assist him opposed this.
[3]The prosecutor argued that the standard direction to…

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 Lyttelton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lyttelton v The Queen [2018] NZSC 94
Case: [2018] NZSC 94
Decision Date: 16 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lyttelton v The Queen, the Supreme Court of New Zealand considered an application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence. The applicant, Martin Victor Lyttelton, was convicted by a jury in the High Court of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm with intent, and aggravated burglary. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against both conviction and sentence. Lyttelton now sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Court of Appeal erred in relation to both conviction and sentence. Regarding conviction, Lyttelton argued that the Court of Appeal overturned established precedents and established new ones, and that errors of fact and law in the Court of Appeal's judgment and his High Court trial resulted in a miscarriage of justice. He also argued that the trial judge should have given a detailed direction on how intoxication may have affected the mental elements required by the charges. Regarding sentence, Lyttelton argued that the refusal to hold a disputed facts hearing meant the sentencing judge proceeded on a wrong factual basis.

The Supreme Court found that the trial judge's direction on intoxication and the Court of Appeal's analysis of it did not call into question the well-established principles relating to intoxication. The Court also found that the Court of Appeal correctly rejected the applicant's argument that a disputed facts hearing was required. The Supreme Court declined leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence.

Orders