Legal Research
Cases
Lyttle v R

Lyttle v R

Case [2019] NZCA 329 24 July 2019

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

Lyttle v R 5

Court of Appeal CA263/2019; [2019] NZCA 329 10

17, 24 July 2019

Collins, Lang and Woolford JJ

Criminal practice and procedure – Jurisdiction – Application for leave to appeal when application for stay of prosecution declined – Whether High Court 15

decision amenable to appeal – Charge had to be determined before statute

engaged – Whether application for stay resulted in determination of charge – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 296 – Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56 – Criminal Disclosure Act 2008.

Statutes – Interpretation – Jurisdiction – Whether court had jurisdiction to 20

grant stay of criminal prosecution – Whether High Court decision not to stay prosecution appealable – Whether “relates” to determination of charge – “Relates” – Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 296.

[Editorial note: Mr Lyttle was found guilty of murdering Mr Hall in a subsequent trial, the verdict given on 14 November 2019.] 25

In June 2014, Mr Lyttle was charged with having murdered Mr Hall in May 2011. The police investigations included a “Mr Big” operation (an operation involving undercover police officers engaging in a carefully orchestrated subterfuge, during which they befriend a suspect in order to entice them into joining a fictitious criminal enterprise). During the operation, Mr Lyttle 30

acknowledged killing Mr Hall and disposing of his body. His prosecution had

been delayed by repeated failures by prosecuting authorities, particularly the police, to comply with their obligations under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008. The information that slowly emerged was important. It showed the police

had access to information that, if correct, suggested two or more other men may 35

have been responsible for Mr Hall’s murder.

At least 15 substantive judgments had been delivered by the High Court, including bail applications, an application to change the venue of the trial, and three applications for a stay of the prosecution that were declined. Mr Lyttle applied for leave to appeal the third of those applications, where Simon 40

France J had concluded that whilst there was still a real risk that items of

potential significance to the defence had not been disclosed, the defence would not be significantly impeded by the likely non-disclosure of further information. He also concluded that there had not been a sufficient lack of

police investigation into alternative suspects to justify granting a stay, and that 45

delay alone could not sustain a stay. Mr Lyttle’s application for leave to appeal identified five questions of law. Those questions raised two issues which were encapsulated by the following two questions:

(a) Did s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the Act) confer

jurisdiction to hear an appeal on a question of law where the decision of the trial court resulted in dismissal of a pre-trial application to stay a prosecution?
(b)Did s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2006 confer a separate jurisdiction

to hear the proposed appeal?
[Editorial note:…

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 Lyttle v R

Details

AGLC: Lyttle v R [2019] NZCA 329
Case: [2019] NZCA 329
Decision Date: 24 July 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lyttle v R, the Court of Appeal considered Mr Lyttle’s application for leave to appeal the High Court’s refusal to stay his murder trial. The Court had to determine whether the High Court’s decision was appealable under s 296 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA) and s 56 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (SCA). The Court found that the decision was not appealable because it did not result in a determination of the charge. The Court noted that the jurisdiction in s 296(3) of the CPA was only likely to apply in relation to decisions dealing with a defendant’s application to dismiss a charge or stay a prosecution where the prosecution wished to appeal a trial court’s decision dismissing a charge or staying a prosecution, or in rare cases where the defendant could demonstrate a trial court’s decision had effectively, resulted in a determination of the proceeding. The Court held that Mr Lyttle could not demonstrate that the High Court decision had effectively resulted in a determination of the proceeding. Therefore it was not amenable to an appeal under s 296(3) of the CPA. The charge had to be determined (for example, the dismissal of a charge under s 147 or by a trial court staying a proceeding) before s 296(3)(b) could apply. The application for leave to appeal was declined. To preserve Mr Lyttle’s fair trial rights, the Court made an 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 trial.

Orders