Case against Tamihere ‘fatally damaged’ by new evidence

Wednesday, 29 November 2023

David Tamihere, who was convicted in 1990 of murdering Swedish backpackers Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Höglin. His case remains one of the country’s most controversial murder convictions.

Claims by David Tamihere that the case against him for murdering two Swedish backpackers has crumbled, have been forcefully rejected by the Crown.

In Wellington’s Court of Appeal on Tuesday, Crown lawyer Fergus Sinclair argued the evidence against Tamihere was actually stronger now than when Tamihere was convicted in 1990 of killing Swedish tourists Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Höglin.

Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen had been travelling in New Zealand for five months before they disappeared in the Coromandel Peninsula in April 1989.

Tamihere has always insisted he is innocent, but served 20 years in prison for the crime before being paroled in 2010.

A crucial part of the evidence against him was a sighting by two trampers of a man they belatedly identified as Tamihere, with a blonde woman at Crosbie’s Clearing, on the Coromandel Peninsula in April 1989.

Their identification was so tainted by unacceptable police practices, it was initially ruled out.

Jailhouse snitch and convicted perjurer Roberto Conchie Harris.

However, it was buttressed by evidence from jailhouse witness Roberto Conchie Harris, who claimed Tamihere confessed to killing the Swedes, and said he was nearly “sprung” by two trampers.

In 2017, Harris was found to have lied about this “confession”, and was convicted of perjury.

This led to Tamihere’s case being referred back to the Court of Appeal to consider if the trampers’ evidence could still be relied upon, without support from Harris’s testimony.

One of David Tamihere’s lawyers, James Carruthers, in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

The Crown case against Tamihere had already appeared to take a significant hit, after Höglin’s body was found in 1991 ‒ more than 70km from where police suggested it would be, and still wearing the watch police claimed Tamihere had stolen and given to his son.

Tamihere’s lawyer James Carruthers told the court the trampers’ identification, buttressed by Harris’s claims, was the most important evidence against Tamihere.

However, it was controversial and contested, given neither tramper originally identified Tamihere from photos. Combining it with notorious prison informant evidence was “a potent recipe for a miscarriage of justice”.

Justice Christine French in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

Carruthers said studies showed juries placed great weight on such jailhouse witness evidence, despite its unreliability.

“There’s a real risk if the door is left ajar, regarding this type of evidence, that the jury will push it open and walk through.“

Justice Christine French, presiding, questioned why, despite considerable media coverage of the Swedes’ disappearance and the accusations against Tamihere, nobody else had come forward saying they were the people the trampers saw at Crosbies Clearing, and not Tamihere and Paakkonen.

Crown lawyers Fergus Sinclair and Rebecca Thomson, who have strongly argued that there is considerable evidence pointing to David Tamihere’s guilt, despite the testimony of Conchie Harris being ruled out.

Carruthers said there could be many reasons, but it was impossible to be definite without knowing who the people were.

Justice Forrie Miller also pushed back at Carruthers asking about other evidence implicating Tamihere, such as equipment the trampers described seeing him with ‒ a distinctive tent, poncho and tomahawk ‒ being found at Tamihere’s home.

While there were similarities, they weren’t necessarily significant, Carruthers said. The tent wasn’t unique, and trampers often carried gear that was much the same, and it was more important that the trampers struggled to remember details of these items.

Carruthers said the Crown scenario of how Tamihere murdered the Swedes had now changed markedly, in order to explain finding Höglin’s body far from where police suggested it would be.

But Sinclair said the discovery actually strengthened the case against Tamihere, given it was in an area he often travelled through.

Tamihere had previously stayed near the location, and Sinclair asked whether it was just extremely bad luck another killer chose this place to kill and leave Höglin.

Sinclair said Tamihere had clearly lied about his movements in order to divert attention from where he had dumped Höglin.

“There are so many features of this extraordinary journey that just don’t add up.”

The appeal continues on Wednesday.