One of NZ’s worst miscarriages of justice goes to trial

One of New Zealand’s most infamous cases of wrongful conviction has returned to the courts more than four decades after the initial crime. On Monday, two former police officers, whose identities remain suppressed due to legal restrictions, faced charges of wilfully attempting to pervert the course of justice in connection with the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton in Papakura. This marks the first time their roles in the original investigation have been publicly acknowledged, following an amendment to a suppression order. Both men have pleaded not guilty, while a third individual charged in relation to the case has since passed away.

The case centers around Alan Hall, a Pākehā man who was wrongfully convicted of murdering Arthur Easton in 1986. At the time, Hall was 23 years old and was sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was overturned in 2022 when the Supreme Court ruled that Hall had suffered a “substantial miscarriage of justice.” This ruling came after nearly 18 years behind bars and another 18 years on parole. Following the reversal, Hall received a record $4.9 million in compensation, marking the largest such payout in New Zealand’s history.

Central to the current trial is the claim that critical evidence was deliberately withheld during the original investigation. According to prosecutors, witness Ronald Turner had stated on multiple occasions that the person he saw fleeing the crime scene was a large Māori man, approximately six feet tall. Hall, however, is a small-framed Pākehā man standing five feet seven inches. This discrepancy, prosecutors argue, was pivotal in the case against Hall. They assert that the failure to disclose Turner’s ethnic description to Hall’s defense team, the trial judge, or the jury significantly weakened the case against Hall and contributed to his wrongful conviction.

Crown prosecutor John Billington KC emphasized that the exclusion of Turner’s testimony was not an accident but a calculated move. He stated that had this information been made available to Hall’s legal representatives, it would have undermined the entire prosecution case. Billington described the situation as either “extreme incompetence or deliberate wrongful strategy,” arguing that the latter was the case. He further contended that the omission of Turner’s statements rendered the evidence insufficient to justify both the charging and the eventual conviction of Hall.

The defense, represented by lawyers David Jones KC and Paul Wicks KC, challenged the prosecution’s narrative. Jones argued that the trial should not be framed solely around Turner’s testimony, suggesting that the Crown’s approach was overly emotional and lacked proper context. He highlighted that other witnesses had also initially described the perpetrator as Māori, which contradicted the prosecution’s assertion that Turner’s testimony was uniquely significant. Additionally, Jones pointed to physical evidence linking Hall to the crime scene, including the ownership of a bayonet and balaclava found at the scene, along with Hall’s inconsistent explanations for why these items were no longer in his possession.

Jones accused the Crown of constructing its case in reverse, starting from the 2022 Supreme Court ruling rather than examining the evidence as it would have been assessed in the 1980s. He maintained that the prosecution’s argument was flawed and that the actual evidence against Hall was stronger than the Crown suggested. Wicks echoed these sentiments, stating that his client had no intent to interfere with the course of justice and had not undertaken any actions aimed at preventing it.

Alan Hall attended the first day of the trial, accompanied by two of his brothers. The proceedings are expected to last approximately two weeks, with further details likely to emerge as the trial progresses. The case not only revisits a tragic chapter in New Zealand’s legal history but also raises important questions about accountability within law enforcement and the mechanisms in place to prevent future miscarriages of justice.