“And the answer is that these witnesses are too dangerous, and we’ve got to stop this nonsense. “We need to get rid of this sort of evidence that’s both unreliable and prejudicial because it’s just not serving the needs of a modern, rational criminal justice system.” “But the truth is the converse, the absolute opposite – if you allow it, you run a high risk of convicting the wrong person and the truly guilty person walking away.” Stevenson said because evidence and experience showed jailhouse witnesses were probably lying, considering using their testimony should only occur in the most exceptional circumstances where their evidence could be shown to be true – such as information indicating where a body might be and this proving correct."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOTO CAPTION: “Double murderer, sex offender, recidivist jailhouse snitch, and perjurer, Roberto Conchie Harris. Harris lied about David Tamihere confessing in prison to murdering Swedish tourists Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Hoglin. He had also claimed inmates confessed to him in other high profile cases.”
GIST: “The controversial use of prison witnesses in New Zealand’s justice system is finally going to be reviewed.
Known as “jailhouse snitches”, they are criminals who claim another prisoner confessed to them while in prison, or admitted details of a crime they were involved with.
In return for providing such evidence, they are frequently rewarded with reduced sentences for their own crimes, better conditions, or support from police in sentencing or parole hearings.
Internationally, they are considered among the most controversial witnesses that appear in trials, with their evidence accepted as potentially highly unreliable.
Many countries have moved to restrict their use, but in New Zealand, there is little to stop it, and prison informants have appeared in many high profile murder trials, including those of Scott Watson, David Tamihere, Mark Lundy, Teina Pora, Arthur Allan Thomas, and Stephen Hudson.
In 2017, notorious recidivist snitch, Roberto Conchie Harris, was convicted on eight charges of perjury for evidence he gave at Tamihere’s 1990 trial for murdering Swedish tourists Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen.
After years of concerns being raised about the use of prison witnesses in New Zealand, the Law Commission has announced it will consider the issue in its latest review of the Evidence Act.
The commission, which provides advice to the government on legal matters, is conducting its third review of the act and looking at areas where reform might be necessary.
Nichola Lambie, a principal advisor at the commission, who is leading the review, said while other potentially problematic and unreliable areas of witness evidence – such as hearsay evidence or visual identification evidence – were dealt with in the Evidence Act, there was nothing specifically about using jailhouse witnesses.
Two recent murder cases where the use of prison informants was challenged all the way to our top court, and the suggestion of former Justice Minister Kris Faafoi, played a part in the Law Commission’s decision to review jailhouse witness evidence, Lambie said.
“I think there is a recognition, including by the Supreme Court, that this is an area that warrants further consideration.”
The commission’s review could look beyond traditional “cellmate confession” evidence to other forms of incentivised witnesses, along with statements from those accused of crimes in covert police investigations, such as Mr Big operations.
Wellington lawyer Christopher Stevenson, one of the founders of the Defence Lawyers Association New Zealand, said he was incredibly encouraged that such a well-known problem in our justice system was finally being scrutinised.
International evidence proved jailhouse snitches were one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions, Stevenson said, but New Zealand authorities, including the Supreme Court in a split-decision, and the Solicitor-General, continued to allow their use.
“The unvarnished truth, in 2022, is that there is a very clear picture that the criminal justice system is far more inaccurate than we had thought previously. And that’s frightening.
“And the answer is that these witnesses are too dangerous, and we’ve got to stop this nonsense.
“We need to get rid of this sort of evidence that’s both unreliable and prejudicial because it’s just not serving the needs of a modern, rational criminal justice system.”
“But the truth is the converse, the absolute opposite – if you allow it, you run a high risk of convicting the wrong person and the truly guilty person walking away.”
Stevenson said because evidence and experience showed jailhouse witnesses were probably lying, considering using their testimony should only occur in the most exceptional circumstances where their evidence could be shown to be true – such as information indicating where a body might be and this proving correct.
Guidelines published last year by The Solicitor-General about precautions prosecutors should take when dealing with jailhouse witnesses, would not stem their use, he said.
“It’s simply a road map to use these witnesses – it changes nothing.”
Meanwhile, police have confirmed they are now keeping a register of jailhouse informants.
Previously, there had been no way to track prisoners who repeatedly claimed cellmates had confessed to them, something that raised obvious concerns about their reliability and motivation.
The Law Commission will publish an issues paper on its Evidence Act review in mid-2023.
Following public consultation, it will provide the Justice Minister with recommendations in February 2024."
The entire story can be read at:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/130037442/law-commission-will-examine-jailhouse-snitches
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resurce. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
SEE BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE ON-GOING INTERNATIONAL CASES (OUTSIDE OF THE CONTINENTAL USA) THAT I AM FOLLOWING ON THIS BLOG, AT THE LINK BELOW: HL:
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/120008354894645705/4704913685758792985
FINAL WORD: (Applicable to all of our wrongful conviction cases): "Whenever there is a wrongful conviction, it exposes errors in our criminal legal system, and we hope that this case — and lessons from it — can prevent future injustices."
Lawyer Radha Natarajan:
Executive Director: New England Innocence Project;
—————————————————————————————————
FINAL, FINAL WORD: "Since its inception, the Innocence Project has pushed the criminal legal system to confront and correct the laws and policies that cause and contribute to wrongful convictions. They never shied away from the hard cases — the ones involving eyewitness identifications, confessions, and bite marks. Instead, in the course of presenting scientific evidence of innocence, they've exposed the unreliability of evidence that was, for centuries, deemed untouchable." So true!
Christina Swarns: Executive Director: The Innocence Project;
-----------------------------------------------------------
