R v LYTTLE [2017] NZHC 3156

R v LYTTLE [2017] NZHC 3156

Application for court-ordered anonymous access to informers via an amicus is declined because the informer statements' content has already been disclosed, the defence cannot satisfy the s67(2) necessity threshold for an effective defence, and the court is not satisfied it has power or should exercise power to coerce...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 3156
Parties
Crown: The Queen; Defendant: David Owen Lyttle
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal: Murder / Pre Trial Interlocutory Ruling on Defence Applications
Outcome
Both defence applications declined
Legal Topics
Mr Big Operations, Informer Identity Privilege, Evidence Act S64 and S67(2), Criminal Disclosure Act Withholding and Override, Expert Witness Direction Under Criminal Procedure Act S113(3)
Criminal Law Evidence Disclosure Informant Privilege Criminal Procedure Mr Big Operations Informer Identity Privilege Evidence Act S64 and S67(2) +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Crown

David Owen Lyttle

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal: Murder / Pre Trial Interlocutory Ruling on Defence Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether court can order anonymous access to confidential informers via an amicus without disclosing identities to prosecution or informers' handlers
  2. 2 Whether informer privilege under Evidence Act s64 can be infringed or side-stepped by court direction to allow questioning
  3. 3 Whether the Evidence Act s67(2) necessity test for an effective defence is met

Ratio Decidendi

Application for court-ordered anonymous access to informers via an amicus is declined because the informer statements' content has already been disclosed, the defence cannot satisfy the s67(2) necessity threshold for an effective defence, and the court is not satisfied it has power or should exercise power to coerce such access which would intrude on informer anonymity; application to direct the Crown to call Dr Roger Shand under s113(3) is declined because the expert opinion is not necessary or relevant to the Crown's case and neither party advances the factual proposition it would address.

Court Disposition

Both defence applications declined

Orders

  • 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. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED
  • Application for court-ordered anonymous access to informers via an amicus declined