Lyttelton v The Queen - [2016] NZHC 1251

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI-2016-404-173 [2016] NZHC 1251

BETWEEN
MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTON

Applicant

AND

THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing: 10 June 2016

Counsel:

G E Minchin for Applicant
F M T Culliney for Respondent

Judgment:

10 June 2016

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

Solicitors/Counsel: Graeme Minchin (Auckland) for Applicant
Meredith Connell (Auckland) for Respondent

LYTTELTON v THE QUEEN [2016] NZHC 1251 [10 June 2016]

Introduction

[1] Mr Lyttelton was found guilty by a jury in the High Court at Auckland on a number of charges including attempted murder. He was sentenced by Asher J on
18 May 2016 to a period of imprisonment.1 He has appealed his conviction and his

sentence. Mr Lyttelton now applies for bail pending the hearing of his appeal.

Background

[2] The case has an unusual background in that Mr Lyttelton originally pleaded guilty to the charges upon which he has now been convicted. He served his sentence and went back in the community, where by all accounts he picked up the traces of his business and did good in the community. However, after some quite lengthy period of time, he sought to have his convictions overturned. The Court of Appeal, on quite a narrow point going to state of mind, granted Mr Lyttelton’s application and ordered a trial. The jury heard the evidence and, as I have said, found Mr Lyttelton guilty of the charges.

[3] Justice Asher, in sentencing, imposed the same sentence as was imposed by the Judge before whom Mr Lyttelton first appeared for sentence. The only difference was that the credit Mr Lyttelton had gained at the first sentencing for his pleas of guilty was not available to him following trial. That meant that Mr Lyttelton’s sentence was increased by 13 months’ imprisonment and he has been serving that sentence since the jury’s findings. I am advised that he has now become eligible for parole.

Discussion

[4] When a prisoner serving a sentence has appealed the conviction or the sentence and wishes to have bail pending appeal, then the prisoner has quite a difficult test to meet. Section 14 of the Bail Act 2000 provides:

(1) If a person is in custody or subject to a sentence of home detention under a conviction and is appealing the conviction or sentence, or both, the court must not grant bail unless it is satisfied on the balance

1 R v Lyttelton [2016] NZHC 1041.

of probabilities that it would be in the interests of justice in the particular case to do so.

(2) The onus is on the appellant to show cause why bail should be granted.

[5] Subsection (3) of s 14 lists considerations which may guide the Court in considering the interests of justice. Mr Minchin, who appears today for Mr Lyttelton, has addressed me in terms of those considerations and I think that that is appropriate.

[6] The first consideration is the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal. There are quite a few grounds 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 Lyttelton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lyttelton v The Queen [2016] NZHC 1251
Case: [2016] NZHC 1251
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lyttelton v The Queen, the applicant, Martin Victor Lyttelton, appealed his conviction and sentence following a jury trial in the High Court at Auckland. Lyttelton was found guilty of multiple charges, including attempted murder, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He now seeks bail pending the hearing of his appeal. The case has a unique background as Lyttelton originally pleaded guilty to the charges, served his sentence, and then sought to have his convictions overturned. The Court of Appeal granted his application and ordered a trial, which resulted in his conviction. The sentencing judge imposed the same sentence as before, but without the credit for his initial guilty plea, resulting in an increased sentence of 13 months' imprisonment. Lyttelton has since become eligible for parole.

The legal issue in this case was whether the applicant should be granted bail pending his appeal, under section 14 of the Bail Act 2000. The onus was on Lyttelton to demonstrate that it would be in the interests of justice to grant him bail. The court considered several factors, including the apparent strength of the grounds of appeal, the length of the sentence imposed, the likely length of time before the appeal is heard, the personal circumstances of the applicant and his family, and any other relevant considerations. The court found that Lyttelton had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on appeal, and that he would likely be released on parole before the appeal was heard. The court also noted that his successful rehabilitation and community contributions were positive factors, but ultimately determined that it was not in the interests of justice to grant him bail pending the appeal.

The court's reasoning and outcome were based on a careful consideration of the relevant factors outlined in the Bail Act. The court found that Lyttelton had not met his burden of demonstrating a strong likelihood of success on appeal or that it would be in the interests of justice to grant him bail. The court also considered the potential consequences of imprisonment on Lyttelton's family and the fact that he would likely be released on parole before the appeal was heard. In light of these factors, the court dismissed Lyttelton's application for bail. This decision highlights the importance of demonstrating a strong likelihood of success on appeal and the interests of justice when seeking bail in such circumstances.

Orders