“We’re fortunate to have this system of justice, and we need to preserve it as best we can,” he said.
Alan Hall was exonerated by the Supreme Court three decades after he was found guilty of murder. Photo / Greg Bowker
The defendants have opted not to have a jury trial. Justice Ian Gault will instead decide the outcome at the end of the hearing, which is expected to last roughly two weeks.
Hall spent 17 years in prison for the October 1985 murder of Arthur Easton inside the victim’s Papakura, South Auckland home. Hall remained subject to lifetime parole conditions until the Supreme Court overturned the conviction in 2022. He later received $4.9 million in compensation, the largest payout in the nation’s history.
Billington described the 1986 trial as having only one issue: the identification of the assailant. Witness Ronald Turner had initially told police he’d seen someone running near the scene of the homicide who was about 6 feet (1.82m) tall and Māori. Hall is 5 feet 7 inches and Pākehā.
Two elderly former police officers are on trial in the High Court at Auckland accused of perverting the course of justice during the 1986 murder trial of Alan Hall. Photo / Dean Purcell
The witness’ description, which was repeated at least two other times, was never disclosed to the defence, the judge or the jury, Billington said. He noted that Hall’s trial lawyer had been Peter Williams, described as one of the most pre-eminent defence lawyers of his time. The prosecutor asked Justice Gault to imagine what Williams would have been able to do with the vital disclosure.
It’s irrelevant whether the defendants truly thought Hall was guilty, Billington said, accusing the defendants of knowing the information they providing to the court was “totally and utterly misleading”.
“What could destroy the police and Crown case was not disclosed,” he added. “Mr Hall should not have been charged, let alone tried.”
Crown prosecutor John Billington, KC. Photo / Dean Purcell
The misrepresentations would continue when Hall fought his conviction through the Court of Appeal and lost, the prosecutor said.
But defence lawyer David Jones, KC, who represents the older of the two defendants, dismissed the Crown’s opening statement to the judge as “hyperbolic”.
“No rational, objective view of the evidence could support such a contention” that the lack of disclosure “destroyed” the right to a fair trial, he said.
It’s debatable that the witness statement was relevant at all, he said, noting that the witness saw someone running in the same neighbourhood but not directly from the crime scene. Meanwhile, he noted, two items of Hall’s had been left at the crime scene and Hall had given five different explanations for why that was so.
“There is no hidden agenda anywhere,” Jones said, noting that it was no secret that two other witnesses – both of whom actually grappled with the killer – initially said the man was Māori. “That was clearly in the public domain.”
Defence lawyer David Jones, KC. Photo / Dean Purcell
Jones accused the Crown of “reverse engineering” a prosecution based on the Supreme Court decision – resulting in “a very emotive and non-contextual and lopsided approach” – rather than more fairly viewing the case as it would have been seen in the 1980s, without the benefit of hindsight.
“He is a person who has decades of experience as a police officer, is highly respected,” Jones said of his client.
By design, defence opening statements at the start of a trial are generally less extensive than what the Crown has to say. Defence lawyer Paul Wicks, KC, who is representing the younger of the two defendants, said it would be repetitive if he also spoke but endorsed everything the fellow defence lawyer said.
The trial is set to continue tomorrow.
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.
Sign up to The Daily H, a free newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.