\u201cThe Supreme Court judgment is framed by different evidence.\u201d<\/p>\n
Jones\u2019 client started his testimony by listing his age-related ailments and conceding that his memory is not what it used to be.<\/p>\n
\u201cMy thought processes are such that at times I struggle,\u201d he said. <\/p>\n
Prosecutors allege the defendants are to blame for a redaction in a written witness statement read to the judge and jurors in 1986. Motorist Ronald Turner had told police he saw a man in a hoodie running across the street and acting suspiciously on the same October 1985 evening and in the same Papakura neighbourhood where Arthur Easton was stabbed to death in his home by a masked intruder.<\/p>\n
The witness described the man as M\u0101ori, insisting the stranger was \u201cdefinitely dark-skinned\u201d when police returned to his home for a follow-up interview months later. But in the finalised written statement presented at a pre-trial hearing and later at trial, his description of the man\u2019s ethnicity was missing. <\/p>\n
Hall is a light-skinned P\u0101keh\u0101.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe undisclosed information was crucial,\u201d Christchurch-based lawyer James Rapley, KC, told the judge last week while testifying as an expert witness. \u201cI have no doubt it would have made a significant difference to the defence case.\u201d<\/p>\n
Lawyer Bruce Stainton, who worked for years on Hall\u2019s appeals, shared a similar sentiment. The defendants continued to conceal the information even when he made detailed written requests for additional evidence as part of the appeal process, it is alleged.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt would have been essential,\u201d he said of the undisclosed information. <\/p>\n
But the defence has argued that Turner\u2019s statements were of little actual value.<\/p>\n
Lawyers asked Justice Gault yesterday to dismiss the charges early, based in part on testimony last week from Turner and his ex-wife. Both said they couldn\u2019t remember seeing the stranger\u2019s face in the dark, but they believed him to be M\u0101ori based on his \u201cmannerisms and his movements\u201d<\/a>.<\/p>\n Justice Gault declined the application after prosecutor John Billington, KC, argued that the case should be judged by what was known to the defendants in 1986 \u2013 not new testimony based on memories that are likely to have significantly faded over the past 40 years.<\/p>\n Just like Turner and his ex-wife last week, the defendant answered many questions while in the witness box today by telling the judge he simply couldn\u2019t remember.<\/p>\n But he did recall having strong doubts about the Turners\u2019 witness statements in the lead-up to the trial. Police had returned to the scene and recreated what they thought Turner\u2019s vantage point would have been that night, the court was told. In the \u201csighting experiment\u201d, in which other officers took turns playing the part of the suspicious pedestrian, the officer viewing the scene from Turner\u2019s vantage point was unable to identify ethnicity, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt left me particularly in a point of view that the explanation given by Mr Turner may not have been accurate,\u201d the defendant recalled of the experiment.<\/p>\n To him, the \u201ccrucial\u201d evidence in the case was a bayonet and a balaclava left at the scene that were later traced back to Hall.<\/p>\n The defendant described a meeting with the Crown in which he voiced concerns raised by the \u201csighting experiment\u201d. He left the meeting with the impression that Turner\u2019s statements were \u201copinion\u201d and would have been inadmissible at trial, but he still expected Turner to give evidence at trial and did not know why a written statement was used instead, he said. <\/p>\n The defendant said he considered it the Crown\u2019s responsibility \u2013 not that of police \u2013 to disclose information to Hall\u2019s lawyers once the case was in the court system.<\/p>\n \u201cDid you consider you had any special obligations aside from the Crown?\u201d his lawyer asked.<\/p>\n \u201cNo,\u201d he responded.<\/p>\n \u201cDid you have an intent to interfere with the proper course of justice?\u201d Jones asked.<\/p>\n The defendant responded: \u201cNo, I did not.\u201d<\/p>\n In his opening statement, Jones insisted his client \u201cacted in a professional and ethical way\u201d throughout the case.<\/p>\n The defendant is expected to continue giving evidence tomorrow. <\/p>\n