R v Lyttle
[2020] NZHC 2392
•31 August 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE
CRI 2014-083-957
[2020] NZHC 2392
THE QUEEN v
DAVID OWEN LYTTLE
On the papers Counsel:
R K Thomson for Crown
C W J Stevenson and E A Hall for Mr Lyttle
Judgment:
31 August 2020
JUDGMENT OF MALLON J
(Expenses: Lyttle family)
[1] This judgment follows my earlier judgment in which an order of $75,000 was made against the New Zealand Police under s 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.1
[2] This order was inclusive of a sum of $7,300 already paid to fund Mr Lyttle’s accommodation and travel costs during his nine-week trial in Wellington in 2019. Leave was reserved for Mr Lyttle’s wife to provide evidence of any additional costs directly caused by the aborted first trial and its transfer to Wellington.2 Subject to any further order for such costs, the balance of the $75,000 was to be applied to the Legal Services Agency in reduction of Mr Lyttle’s debt.3
1 R v Lyttle [2020] NZHC 488.
2 At [92].
3 At [93].
R v LYTTLE [2020] NZHC 2392 [31 August 2020]
[3] Pursuant to the leave reserved, a claim for $65,112.40 has been made on behalf of the Lyttle family. This sum is made up of claims for:
(a)travel by Mrs Lyttle to visit Mr Lyttle in prison during his initial remand of just over two years;
(b)travel by Mr Lyttle reporting twice a week pursuant to bail conditions;
(c)travel to Wellington for stay applications;
(d)lost income during stay applications;
(e)travel from Halcombe to Palmerston North for 2018 trial;
(f)lost income due to 2018 trial;
(g)travel by Mrs Lyttle to Wellington for 2019 trial; and
(h)meals in Wellington during 2019 trial.
[4] The items (a) to (e) are not direct costs from aborting the 2018 Palmerston North trial and its transfer to Wellington. They are therefore not within the leave I granted.
[5] The item at (f) is claimed because Mr Lyttle, who had been working 40 hours per week prior to the 2018 trial, turned away work for the nine weeks that the trial was expected to run. Mr Lyttle was then unable to find work in the period between the collapse of the Palmerston North trial and the Wellington trial. This is not the kind of expense envisaged by the leave granted. The aborted trial meant that Mr Lyttle’s conviction and the commencement of his sentence was delayed by around a year. Had that delay not occurred, Mr Lyttle would not have been able to work in any event.
[6] Further information was sought about the item at (g) and the Crown was given the opportunity to make further submissions on that item as well as item (h). As to (g), the issue was whether the sum claimed was covered by the ex gratia payment the
Police had made for travel during the trial. Further information has clarified that a portion of the sum claimed under (g) was covered by the Police payment, leaving
$1,692.36 that was not. As to (h), the Crown notes that Mr and Mrs Lyttle would have needed to eat regardless of where the trial was held. However, had the trial been in Palmerston North, Mrs Lyttle would have been able to provide food for them from her home. It is generally the case that this will be more economical than arranging meals in transitory accommodation away from the home while still arranging food for family members who remain at the home (here, the Lyttle children). Moreover, the amount claimed is relatively modest.
[7] I am satisfied that the revised sum claimed at item (g) ($1,692.36) and the sum claimed at item (h) ($1,350) are costs directly caused by the trial being moved to Wellington. That transfer was necessary to secure the most suitable trial date in the interests of justice against the backdrop of the delays to trial. It was clear that the Lyttle family did not have the money for the additional expenses associated with a trial in Wellington rather than in Palmerston North. Against the backdrop of the hardship caused to the Lyttle family by the delays to trial, I consider the claim for the items at
(g) and (h) should be allowed.
[8] Accordingly, from the order of $75,000, the sum of $3,042.36 is to be paid to Mrs Lyttle. The balance, after the deduction of $7,300 already paid for Mr Lyttle’s travel and accommodation, is to be paid to the Legal Services Agency in reduction of Mr Lyttle’s debt.
Mallon J