Injustice and insult: Why is Alan Hall having to prove his innocence?

Thursday, 15 September 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. Stuff followed Alan and his family during the process. (First published in June 2022)

In June, Alan Hall’s 37-year fight for justice ended when the Supreme Court quashed his conviction for murdering Arthur Easton. Why, then, is the Government now insisting he prove his innocence if he is to receive compensation for the 19 years he spent in prison? Mike White looks at a system critics insist is flawed and unfair.

On Tuesday morning, Justice Minister Kiri Allan announced she had appointed retired judge Rodney Hansen, KC, to assess Alan Hall’s claim to be compensated for one of the worst miscarriages of justice New Zealand has seen.

Hall was convicted of murdering Auckland father of five Arthur Easton in 1985, and served 19 years in prison before the Supreme Court finally quashed his conviction in June, saying the justice system had failed Hall, “with seriously adverse consequences for him”.

However, when Allan issued her press release on Tuesday, saying Hansen would investigate whether Hall was innocent and deserving of compensation, nobody had contacted Hall or his lawyer to let them know of the development, and they learned of it only via media.

It seemed symptomatic of a system that had shown scant interest in Hall’s claims of innocence over three decades, another example of bureaucratic ambivalence for someone who had already suffered gross injustice.

* 'It should never have happened': How everyone turned a blind eye to Alan Hall's wrongful conviction

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

* Supreme Court quashes murder conviction of wrongfully jailed man

Alan Hall’s wrongful conviction compensation application will ultimately be decided by Cabinet. In New Zealand, there is no legal right to compensation for being wrongfully convicted of a crime – it is at the discretion of ministers.

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

But the announcement also raised broader questions:

Why should Hall have to prove his innocence, when the country’s highest court has already ruled he is the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice?

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.

Why should politicians be in charge of the compensation process?

And why should the Ministry of Justice, which three times previously concluded Hall was guilty, be involved in a process where Hall has to show he is innocent?

Alan Hall was 23 when he became the police’s prime suspect for the murder of Arthur Easton, 52, who was stabbed to death in his Papakura home.

In 1986, Hall was convicted and sentenced to life in prison. He was released in 1994, but sent back to prison for breaching his parole in 2012. He was finally released in March this year.

The weeks that followed were dramatic.

Retired High Court Judge Rodney Hansen, KC, has been appointed to assess whether Alan Hall is innocent, and if so, what compensation he should receive. Hansen also reviewed the compensation application of Teina Pora, who was eventually awarded $3.5 million for his wrongful conviction.

In an unprecedented act, Crown Law, the agency in charge of criminal prosecutions in New Zealand, urged the Supreme Court to quash Hall’s convictions, on the basis that police had deliberately altered a crucial witness’ evidence, the prosecution had concealed vital witness statements, and that Hall, who has an intellectual disability, was unfairly interviewed by police.

The Supreme Court agreed, and in an extraordinarily swift decision, announced on the day of Hall’s hearing that his convictions were quashed, and he should not be retried.

But any assumptions that Hall’s long quest for justice was over, and the state would now compensate him for having stolen his adult life, were quickly checked by the justice minister.

In New Zealand, there is no legal right to compensation if you have been wrongfully jailed.

Instead, paying compensation is at the discretion of Cabinet, which must be convinced the person is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

Hall’s lawyer, Nick Chisnall, urged Justice Minister Kiri Allan to accept Hall’s innocence, given the findings of Crown Law and the Supreme Court, and skip to considering the quantum of payout to Hall.

Alan Hall was 23 when he became the prime suspect for the murder of Arthur Easton, who was stabbed to death in his Auckland home.

However, Allan relied on ministry advice, and decided it was necessary to follow convention and appoint a Queen’s Counsel (now King’s Counsel) to decide if Hall was indeed innocent.

If accepted, Hall’s compensation could exceed $6 million, by far the largest payout for a wrongful conviction in New Zealand’s history.

AUT law professor Kris Gledhill says it’s outrageous Hall has to now prove his innocence, and it adds insult to the injury Hall has suffered for 37 years.

“They’ve knocked him down, they keep knocking him down, they were determined to try to knock him down till [this year].

“Then they finally say, ‘Yeah, look, all right, you should never have been in prison.’

“And now they come back and say, ‘Well, sorry, we’ve got a policy, and we’ve got to apply that policy.’

“The point is that one branch of government, Crown Law, has accepted that it was unarguable that there was a miscarriage of justice – they didn’t try and justify the conviction.

“And yet an office (Ministry of Justice), which is probably on the same floor in the same building in Wellington, is saying ‘No, no, no, he’s got to prove a negative. He’s got to prove he’s not guilty.’

“It’s just a ridiculous burden to impose on somebody who should never have been in prison in the first place.”

Alan Hall has spent 37 years trying to clear his name. Now 60, he is gradually getting used to life out of prison.

Gledhill argues New Zealand is out of step with international convention that compensation should be paid to those wrongly imprisoned. Our approach, that payments are “ex gratia”, at the discretion of politicians, is “pretty obviously in breach of international human rights standards”, he says.

He believes it would be far better to have an independent body decide compensation – in the same way the Government removed consideration of wrongful convictions from the ministry and Minister of Justice in 2020, when it established the Criminal Cases Review Commission.

The Government claims it needs to control the compensation process because it’s taxpayers’ money, and ministers need to be accountable for spending it.

This conservative approach is borne out by how infrequently compensation is paid.

Even when released from prison in March 2022, Hall was required to wear an electronic monitoring device around his ankle, which left scars after it was removed.

In the last 25 years, 39 applications for compensation have been made, but only eight accepted, with a total of $6.8 million paid out.

But Gledhill says that because it is so rare and so difficult to prove a miscarriage of justice, having an independent body overseeing the compensation process wouldn’t open the floodgates to such payments.

The reality was, most people who were wrongfully convicted would never have their convictions overturned, let alone receive compensation.

Alan Hall was an exception.

Even then, he had to wait 37 years to prove his case, and making him wait longer for compensation was pouring salt in the wounds of his “blindingly obvious” injustice, Gledhill says.

“It’d be nice if [Kiri Allan] got a one-paragraph reply from the QC, which said, ‘Bloody hell, this one’s obvious, yes, he’s innocent.’”

Justice Minister Kiri Allan insists the proper process is being followed when assessing Alan Hall’s wrongful conviction compensation claim, and the appointment of Rodney Hansen KC will ensure its independence.

Hansen’s inquiry will be the fifth launched following Hall’s acquittal in June.

There are two police reviews of their original investigation; an examination by a KC of the Crown’s role in the miscarriage; and an Independent Police Conduct Authority investigation.

Unless the inquiries collaborate, which would undermine their independence, it raises questions of what happens if they come to different conclusions regarding Hall’s innocence.

And questions have also been raised about the Ministry of Justice having any role in Hall’s compensation claim, given its history with the case.

It was the ministry’s predecessor, the Department of Justice, which three times rejected Hall’s efforts to prove his innocence via the royal prerogative of mercy, a last-gasp appeal to the governor-general overseen by justice officials.

The officials dismissed Hall’s applications in 1987, 1988 and 1993, opining that “the evidence does not display the cogency and relevance that could support a referral to the Court of Appeal”.

When this evidence was again put before the Ministry of Justice, in 2019, the ministry claimed it was “functus officio” – had discharged its duties – and wiped its hands of Hall’s case, despite him still being in prison.

Investigator Tim McKinnel says Alan Hall has been left with nothing after 19 years in prison and many more on restrictive parole.

Yet, two years later, when the same evidence was presented to the Supreme Court, Hall’s convictions were immediately quashed, with both Crown Law and the Supreme Court aghast at the deliberate attempts by police and prosecution to manipulate and obscure evidence in order to convict Hall.

Indeed, Crown Law took the exceptional step of criticising the Department of Justice’s advice in Hall’s second and third applications for mercy, stating bluntly that it was wrong.

The Ministry of Justice has refused to answer Stuff’s questions about whether it stands by the advice it gave in these applications; whether it agrees with the position of Crown Law and the Supreme Court that Hall is a victim of a miscarriage of justice; and whether it would apologise to Hall.

Its chief legal counsel, Jeff Orr, says this is because it is involved in considering Hall’s compensation claim and providing advice to the justice minister.

Minister Allan insists there is no conflict of interest in the ministry being involved with Hall’s case, as it has no stake or interest in the outcome of royal prerogative of mercy applications, or compensation claims.

Alan Hall, middle, with brothers Greg, left, and Geoff, who have worked to prove his innocence for over three decades.

She says the ministry provides advice and assistance to her, “independent of the police, the prosecution and the courts. It neither advocates for applicants nor defends the Crown”.

However, a comment in a 2003 discussion paper from the ministry indicates how it considered appeals such as Hall’s.

“It is important not to undermine the credibility of the criminal justice process; the prerogative should therefore be exercised sufficiently rarely to ensure that in most cases, trial and appellate decisions are upheld, and care must also be taken not to impugn the jury’s fact-finding role.”

Lawyer Bruce Stainton, who presented Hall’s third application for the prerogative of mercy, says there is clearly a conflict of interest in ministry officials playing any role in Hall’s compensation bid, and called on them to recuse themselves.

While Allan insists having a KC consider Hall’s application ensures Cabinet receives independent advice, Stainton says it is fundamentally wrong that the state wants to control a process born of its own mistakes, and “be the final arbiter of this poor bugger’s torture during the majority of his life”.

Stainton, who describes himself as “37 years angry” about Hall’s treatment, has written to the Secretary of Justice asking why the ministry rejected Hall’s protestations of innocence in 1993, when officials had the same information sitting in front of them that the Supreme Court had this year.

“How could they get it so wrong? Please give me an explanation.”

Other than an acknowledgement of his letter, Stainton has not had a reply.

If Hall is successful, Stainton says the Government should also compensate him for his mother, Shirley, having to sell the family’s home to pay Hall’s legal bills.

Investigator Tim McKinnel, who worked on Hall’s case for four years, said he understood Kiri Allan’s cautious approach, given that millions of taxpayer dollars could be at stake if Hall was deemed innocent.

“But none of that offers any relief to Alan. His life has been ravaged by this terrible miscarriage of justice.

“He’s come out of prison this year and has nothing. He’s 60, and all he can do is be philosophical and patient.”

Despite Allan asking that Hansen “give priority” to Hall’s case, McKinnel says his experience helping Teina Pora showed that involving a KC in the process would delay the outcome by many months.

Alan Hall’s brother, Greg Hall, says he is pleased Hansen, who considered Pora’s compensation case, has been appointed, and he looks forward to a positive decision.

However, another brother, Geoff Hall, says Alan can’t comprehend why a decision on compensation is taking so long.

“And he would like them to pull finger, and get along with it.

“We understand there’s bureaucracy, but I feel there’s been enough evidence to show Alan had absolutely nothing to do with this murder, and all the evidence to show he was framed by the police.

“But they’ve decided that 37 years isn’t enough, and they want to make it 38 before we can start healing for Alan – healing his soul and healing his wellbeing.”

For now, Geoff was looking after Alan, and trying to keep his spirits up.

Meanwhile, the agencies who caused his miscarriage now seemed more interested in internal reviews than Alan’s welfare.

“Everyone knows he’s been in jail till March. Everyone knows he’s been diagnosed with autism.

“But not one of them have come back and said, ‘How can we help him integrate when he needs it most?’

“They’ve taken zero interest in him.”