Convicted killer asks for costs
Lawyers for a convicted murderer want the case prosecutor and police to be penalised for not disclosing potentially relevant information, especially details that suggested someone else was the killer.
The unusual application for costs to ‘‘penalise and incentivise’’ comes out of the prosecution of David Owen Lyttle.
His lawyer, Christopher Stevenson, said defendants were supposed to have a ‘‘fair go’’ in knowing the evidence police had gathered, especially when it suggested the defendant might be innocent.
Lyttle’s lawyers repeatedly asked for information about other suspects and were told it did not exist but that was incorrect, Stevenson said in the High Court at Wellington yesterday.
Lyttle, 55, a builder from Halcombe in Manawatu¯ , was sentenced in December to serve at least 11 years of a life term for murdering Bretton (Brett) Hall in May 2011.
Hall disappeared from his remote property near Whanganui River and his body has not been found.
For years, Lyttle was a suspect in his friend’s disappearance but police felt they didn’t have enough evidence to charge him.
An elaborate undercover operation was launched in 2014, pretending to recruit Lyttle to an underworld group, during which he was asked to divulge anything that might attract police attention.
At his trial, Lyttle’s lawyers said his confession during the undercover operation was false.
Stevenson said Lyttle maintained his innocence and was appealing against his conviction. The grounds of the appeal would include the effect police non-disclosure of information had on the trial process.
The Crown agreed obligations to disclose information were not met, but maintained that Lyttle nevertheless had a fair trial.
Since the original investigation in 2011 through to trial in 2019, three Crown prosecutors had been involved, police personnel and practices had changed, and disclosure rules that were new in 2011 came to be seen more broadly.
No costs should be awarded in the unique circumstances of the case, said Rebecca Thomson, acting for Crown Law. She said the information about other suspects turned out to be gossip blown out of proportion and without any concrete foundation.
Justice Jill Mallon reserved her decision.