Crown knew about serious problems with Alan Hall's murder conviction, but did nothing

Friday, 10 June 2022

Alan Hall, who was convicted of murdering Arthur Easton, spent 19 years in jail for the crime. His conviction was quashed by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.

Alan Hall was convicted for murder in 1986. His conviction was quashed this week.
The Crown was aware of serious problems with the conviction as early as 2018 but did not act.
They are now carrying out an investigation into what went wrong.

Crown Law, which is responsible for criminal prosecutions in New Zealand, knew about serious problems with Alan Hall’s murder conviction four years ago, but did nothing.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court quashed Hall’s 1986 conviction for murdering Auckland father of five, 52-year-old Arthur Easton, saying a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Hall spent 19 years in prison for the crime, despite steadfastly insisting he was innocent.

On Thursday, Solicitor-General Una Jagose announced she was launching an investigation into the Crown’s role in Hall’s wrongful conviction, saying she took such a miscarriage of justice very seriously.

* Arthur Easton's family react to quashing of Alan Hall murder conviction

Solicitor-General Una Jagose, who was in charge of Crown Law when it was told about serious issues with Alan Hall’s conviction in 2018 and again in 2020.

* Man who spent 19 years in jail for murder was wrongfully convicted, Crown admits

* Convicted murderer in controversial case appeals again after 35 years

“The Solicitor-General is responsible for the conduct of Crown prosecutions, and I am determined to find out why and how Mr Hall, Mr Easton, and both their families have been so severely let down by the justice system.

“My focus now is on understanding how the Crown’s role in this miscarriage occurred and why the criminal justice system failed to remedy it earlier.”

However, Stuff can reveal that Crown Law itself, Jagose’s own department, was fully aware of Hall’s situation and the serious problems with his conviction, as early as 2018, and refused to act, even though Hall was still in prison at the time.

Jagose has been Solicitor-General since 2016.

Alan Hall was 23 when he became the prime suspect in the murder of Arthur Easton, despite not fitting eyewitness descriptions of the offender.

At the heart of Hall’s wrongful conviction was the deliberate altering of a key witness statement, and the hiding of vital evidence that pointed away from Hall being the offender.

Ronald Turner described seeing a Māori man running from the direction of the crime.

However, police didn’t disclose his two initial statements including this description, and the prosecution also removed any reference to the man being Māori from Turner’s evidence that was read to the jury at Hall’s trial.

Crucially, Alan Hall, a slightly-built Pākehā, didn’t fit this description.

On May 24, Stuff asked Crown Law when it had been aware that Ronald Turner’s evidence had been changed and not disclosed to Hall or his lawyers at his trial.

Crown Law replied it had “no record of being notified by anyone that Mr Turner’s statement was altered, prior to receiving documentation from [Alan Hall’s lawyer] relating to the current [Supreme Court] appeal in January 2022.

“In responding to this appeal, and in inquiring into that very question, we have searched all archived and digital records to which the Crown has access, going back to the time of the trial, and using a range of search terms, and have not found anything relevant.'

However, Stuff can reveal that serious problems with Mr Hall’s conviction were repeatedly raised with Crown Law in 2018, and again in 2020, but were rebuffed.

Arthur Easton, who was murdered in his home in Papakura in October 1985. Alan Hall was convicted of his murder in 1986. In June 2022, the Supreme Court quashed Hall's conviction and said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

Former Newshub journalist Mike Wesley-Smith, who investigated Hall’s case for more than a year, and produced the podcast Grove Road, wrote to Crown Law in 2018, asking for a response to the doctoring of Ronald Turner’s evidence.

He provided Crown Law with court documents; Turner’s police statements; an affidavit from Turner saying his evidence had been changed without his knowledge; and Hall’s 1993 Royal prerogative of mercy application, which also highlighted the fact Turner’s statement had been doctored by the prosecution.

Crown Law responded it wasn’t possible for the Crown to initiate the process of examining Hall’s conviction.

In 2020, Wesley-Smith again wrote to Crown Law raising the serious concerns about Hall’s conviction, including tampering with Turner’s statements, and asked: “Does the Crown consider its obligations of fairness to process, and maintaining the integrity of the criminal justice system, require it to take proactive steps to address the fair trial concerns identified by the Hall family?

“If so what steps will it take?”

Crown Law replied it didn’t hold any records relating to the case, and could not help with Wesley-Smith’s queries.

This is despite Crown Law’s own website stating the Solicitor-General is responsible “for the prosecution of criminal jury trials and Crown representation in appeals against conviction and sentences.”

Instead, it again referred Wesley-Smith to the Crown prosecutor at Alan Hall’s trial, Peter Kaye, “who may or may not be able to assist (but of course is under no obligation to do so).

Alan Hall, centre, his family, and legal team make their way to the Supreme Court in Wellington on Wednesday morning.

“We note that this matter has been investigated by the Ministry of Justice, in the context of an application for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, on more than one occasion. That is the appropriate forum to resolve the issues you have raised, and Crown Law will not be commenting further.”

Wesley-Smith wrote back, saying: “The response suggests the Crown think it is entirely up to the defendant to advance matters of this nature, irrespective of whether that defendant may be intellectually impaired, impecunious or presently incarcerated.”

He received no response from Crown Law.

In all the time Wesley-Smith was communicating with Crown Law and asking what it was going to do about Alan Hall’s case, Hall remained in prison. He was not released until March this year, after having been recalled to prison in 2012 for parole breaches.

Wesley-Smith, who was in the Supreme Court on Wednesday to see Alan Hall’s conviction quashed after 36 years, said the response from Crown Law, and all other official agencies he raised Hall’s potential wrongful conviction with, was “to not do anything.”

“I mean, there was just a complete absence of concern.

“I just didn’t know how more clear I could be. I felt I had gone to every actor in the justice system that was well-placed to do something about it – the police, the Ministry of Justice, Crown Law, the Crown solicitors’ offices.

“I literally ran out of places to go.”

He said the inaction of Crown Law and other official bodies left him dismayed, and the clear abuse of process in Hall’s case, and the fact key elements of his wrongful conviction were known since 1988, made it crucial there was an impartial inquiry into what had happened.

“The last thing any neutral observer should take from this whole experience is to say, ‘This is the system working.’ Because it’s not.”

When asked how it could reconcile Wesley-Smith having explicitly raised concerns about Hall’s case and the deliberate alteration of evidence, in 2018 and 2020, with its claim to Stuff it knew nothing of this until January this year, Crown Law said it would undertake further searches of its records and couldn’t comment further.

In launching the independent investigation into Hall’s prosecution, to be carried out by Wellington barrister Nicolette Levy, QC, Jagose stressed New Zealanders must have trust and confidence in the justice system, and needed to understand what led to this miscarriage.

Meanwhile, police have announced they have begun a full review of the investigation into Arthur Easton’s murder, but haven’t said whether they will reopen the case.

Yesterday, Arthur Easton’s family said it expected police to reopen the investigation, “to bring the real killer to justice”.

“We are shaken and appalled by the revelations of deliberate manipulation and non-disclosure of evidence by the police and prosecution, not only at the initial trial but also during [Hall’s] 1987 appeal.

“Our family had placed our trust in the criminal justice system, and it has failed both families. We appreciate the Crown’s statement that this police conduct may be subject to a separate inquiry, and we join with the Hall family in support of a full inquiry.”