R v Lyttle

[2020] NZHC 488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2014-083-957

[2020] NZHC 488

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID OWEN LYTTLE

Hearing:

24 February 2020

Counsel:

R K Thomson for Crown

C W J Stevenson and E A Hall for Mr Lyttle

Judgment:

11 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

(Costs)

Introduction  [1]

The background  [5]

Police investigation  [8]

First adjournment  [17]

Second adjournment  [20]

Third adjournment  [21]

Fourth adjournment (mistrial)  [24]

Third stay application  [29]

Trial proceeds in 2019  [41]

The disclosure regime  [44]

The costs regime  [49]

My assessment  [62]

Whom the award should be made against  [83]

Whom the award should be made to  [88]

Result  [93]

R v LYTTLE [2020] NZHC 488 [11 March 2020]

Introduction

[1]                 David Lyttle is serving a sentence of life imprisonment for the murder of his friend, Brettan Hall.1 Mr Hall was last seen alive in late May 2011. Mr Hall’s body has not been found to this day. Mr Lyttle maintains his innocence and has lodged an appeal against his conviction.

[2]                 Mr Lyttle’s trial took place over nine weeks at the end of last year, five and a half years after his arrest and over eight years after Mr Hall’s disappearance. There had been four earlier trial dates set. The trial did not proceed on the first date, largely because the admissibility of certain evidence was awaiting the outcome of a similar case. The next two dates were vacated because the Police had failed to meet their obligations under the Criminal Disclosure Act 2008 (CDA). The trial commenced on the fourth date, but a mistrial was ordered in its second week for the same reason.

[3]                 Mr Lyttle applies for a costs order of $150,000 against the prosecutor for disclosure failings under s 364 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (the CPA). He seeks an order that half of the costs be ordered against the Crown prosecutor who took over the conduct of the case in October 2016, and that the other half be ordered against the Police.

[4]                 The Crown accepts the requirements of s 364 are met. However, in light of changes in police practice and payments already made as a direct result of the disclosure failings, it says no order is appropriate in this case. If any order is made, the Crown says it should be made against the Police only.

The background

[5]                 Mr Lyttle and Mr Hall had known each other for many years and were close friends. In late 2010 and early 2011, Mr Lyttle was building a house for Mr Hall on a remote property north of Whanganui. Mr Hall provided cash to Mr Lyttle to purchase building materials. Mr Lyttle was to be paid for his labour once the building was at the lock up stage.

1      R v Lyttle [2019] NZHC 3454.

[6]                 The Crown’s case was that Mr Lyttle was in financial difficulty and had been using money intended for the…