Legal Research
Cases
R v Lyttle

R v Lyttle

Case [2019] NZHC 3454 19 December 2019

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE

CRI 2014-083-957

[2019] NZHC 3454

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID OWEN LYTTLE

Counsel: M M Wilkinson-Smith and C A Middleton for Crown C W J Stevenson and E A Hall for Mr Lyttle

Date:

19 December 2019

SENTENCING NOTES OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] David Lyttle, you appear for sentencing, having been convicted following a jury trial of murdering Bretton Hall.

Circumstances of offending

[2] You maintain you did not kill Mr Hall but you are to be sentenced in accordance with the jury’s verdict and the facts established at trial in light of that verdict.

[3] You had known Mr Hall for many years. You were close friends and he was the best man at your wedding. The events that gave rise to you killing your friend date back to late 2010 and into 2011.

R v LYTTLE [2019] NZHC 3454 [19 December 2019]

[4] At this time Mr Hall, who had spent some time in prison for drug offending, was on parole. He was living at his campsite, comprising a caravan and two sheds, on a property at Pitangi that he jointly owned with another man.

[5] The Pitangi property is rural and remote. It comprises many steep ridges and gullies and is largely covered by vegetation. It is accessed via the Pitangi Track which runs off the Whanganui River Road, about a 45 minute drive north of Whanganui. Access up the Pitangi Track is generally by four-wheel drive. At the top of the track is a flatter piece of grassed land where Mr Hall’s campsite was.

[6] You were building a house for Mr Hall on this site. Mr Hall loved his piece of land and knew how to look after himself in this wild but beautiful setting. He was excited about and focussed on getting his house built.

[7] It is fair to say that the agreement you had with Mr Hall for the build of the house was a good one for him. He paid you cash to purchase the building materials and you were to be paid for your labour once the house was at the lock up stage. The overall price for materials and your labour to that stage was $70,000. You were also to be paid for the petrol for the drive from your home in Halcombe to Pitangi.

[8] Progress with the build was much slower than Mr Hall anticipated for a range of reasons. You had a shoulder injury which limited your ability to do heavy work and you were incapacitated for period when you had surgery for that injury. Some of the issues with progress however, such as the title and plan issues, were not of your making but were a source of frustration for Mr Hall. Eventually the build got underway, but then Mr Hall became concerned that you were not using the money he gave you to buy building materials and,…

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 R v Lyttle

Details

AGLC: R v Lyttle [2019] NZHC 3454
Case: [2019] NZHC 3454
Decision Date: 19 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

David Owen Lyttle was convicted of murdering Bretton Hall and was sentenced by Mallon J in the High Court of New Zealand. The central legal issue was whether the mandatory life imprisonment sentence for murder should be departed from in this case. The court examined the circumstances of the offence, the offender's background, and the impact on the victim's family. The court found that while the offending was aberrant and the offender had no prior convictions, the killing was not premeditated but resulted from a sudden decision under financial pressure and conflict over money. The court also considered the offender's conduct after the killing, which was aggravating. Ultimately, the court determined that the standard sentence of life imprisonment was appropriate, but set a minimum non-parole period of 11 years, taking into account factors both aggravating and mitigating. The offender was also warned of the consequences under the three strikes law for any future serious violent offences. The final orders were that the offender be sentenced to life imprisonment with an 11-year minimum non-parole period.

Orders