LYTTELTON v R CA852/2012 [2015] NZCA 79
The application to lift suppression was dismissed because publication of the judgment was not necessary for a fair trial; the existing prohibition is an orthodox protection given the judgment's review of competing theories and their relative merits, and lifting it could prejudice the retrial.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2015] NZCA 79
- Parties
- Appellant: Martin Victor Lyttelton; Respondent: The Queen
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Application to Lift Suppression Pending Retrial
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; prohibition on publication maintained until final disposition of retrial
- Legal Topics
- Suppression Order, Publication Ban, Fair Trial, Retrial, Open Justice
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Martin Victor Lyttelton
Appellant
The Queen
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Application to Lift Suppression Pending Retrial
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the existing publication prohibition should be lifted pending retrial
- 2 Whether publication of the judgment is necessary to ensure a fair trial at retrial
- 3 Whether publication would prejudice the retrial or was otherwise inappropriate
Ratio Decidendi
The application to lift suppression was dismissed because publication of the judgment was not necessary for a fair trial; the existing prohibition is an orthodox protection given the judgment's review of competing theories and their relative merits, and lifting it could prejudice the retrial.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; prohibition on publication maintained until final disposition of retrial
Orders
- Application for an order lifting the prohibition on publication dismissed
- Prohibition on 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 remains in force until final disposition of retrial
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
LYTTELTON v R CA852/2012 [2015] NZCA 79 [23 March 2015]ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANYPART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWSMEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLEDATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF RETRIAL. PUBLICATIONIN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA852/2012[2015] NZCA 79BETWEEN MARTIN VICTOR LYTTELTONAppellantAND THE QUEENRespondentCourt: Miller, Heath and Clifford JJCounsel: Appellant in personM J Lillico for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)23 March 2015 at 11.30 amJUDGMENT OF THE COURTThe application for an order lifting the prohibition on publication in ourjudgment of 19 December 2014 is dismissed.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] This judgment addresses Mr Lyttelton's application for an order liftingsuppression pending retrial.[2] Mr Lyttelton has sought this order, saying that it is necessary for fair trialreasons that the judgment and any part of the proceedings be published in the newsmedia or on the internet or on other publicly available database, so allowing fair newsreporting of both the fact of the first trial and the fact of the retrial, as well as thisCourt's reasons. He says that it will allow him to openly discuss the appeal and thereasons for the retrial with members of the public with whom he will be dealing whenpreparing for the retrial.[3] The Crown opposes the application, pointing out that the order does notpreclude Mr Lyttelton talking to potential witnesses or friends or family and notingthat his name is not suppressed.[4] We decline the application. We do not accept that it is necessary for fair trialreasons. The order of this kind is orthodox having regard to the content of ourjudgment, which, as the Crown submits, reviews the respective theories of the caseand their relative merits.Solicitors:Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent