PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "In 1991, ahead of Tamihere’s appeal, Höglin’s skeletal remains were found in Wentworth Valley - quite some distance from Crosbies Clearing. The initial trial had also included evidence from prison snitch Roberto Conchie Harris - then known was Witness C. In 2017, Harris was convicted of perjury. At that first trial, Harris claimed Tamihere said he beat Höglin about the head with a lump of wood, dumped his body at sea and gave Höglin’s watch to his son - all of which were proved to be wrong after Höglin’s body was discovered in 1991. Paakkonen’s body has never been found. Then in 2020, Tamihere was granted the legal lifeline of a Royal Prerogative of Mercy. His case was then heard by the Court of Appeal in 2023, which again dismissed his appeal, but found the inclusion of Harris’ evidence may have affected the verdicts and amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal said other evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered the Swedish couple."
——————————————————————————
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Last December, the Supreme Court granted leave to Tamihere, with the approved question being whether the Court of Appeal was correct not to exercise its jurisdiction and quash his convictions."
————————————————————--
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Murray Gibson outlined Tamihere’s appeal and said the case presents unusual circumstances and, while the Court of Appeal had acknowledged there had been a miscarriage of justice, it did not overturn Tamihere’s convictions. Tamihere’s legal team argue there has been a “substantial miscarriage of justice”. Gibson went on to say there were six reasons Tamihere wasn’t allowed a fair trial - including the evidence of two trampers, the evidence of now convicted perjurer Roberto Conchie-Harris, other identification issues, evidence about Höglin’s watch and the affidavit of the late Sir Robert Jones."
----------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Supreme Court hears David Tamihere’s appeal for Swedish backpacker murders," by Senior Reporter Catrin Owen, published by 'Stuff' on August 18, 2025. (Catrin Owen covers courts, crime and justice for NZStuff.)
SUB-HEADING: “David Tamihere back in court: Convicted double-murderer Tamihere makes final attempt to clear name,
GIST: “Courtroom 11 at the High Court at Auckland was packed on Monday morning as the Supreme Court justices sat on the bench to hear the appeal of David Tamihere - more than three decades after he was convicted of killing two Swedish backpackers.
David Tamihere, now 71, told Stuff he was a “bit optimistic” ahead of the three-day appeal. He has always maintained his innocence and said the Supreme Court appeal was a bit of a last chance in the hope his convictions are quashed.
Tamihere spent two decades behind bars for the murder of Heidi Paakkonen and Sven Urban Höglin in 1989.
Murray Gibson outlined Tamihere’s appeal and said the case presents unusual circumstances and, while the Court of Appeal had acknowledged there had been a miscarriage of justice, it did not overturn Tamihere’s convictions.
Tamihere’s legal team argue there has been a “substantial miscarriage of justice”.
Gibson went on to say there were six reasons Tamihere wasn’t allowed a fair trial - including the evidence of two trampers, the evidence of now convicted perjurer Roberto Conchie-Harris, other identification issues, evidence about Höglin’s watch and the affidavit of the late Sir Robert Jones.
The trial and subsequent appeals
The Swedish backpackers disappeared while tramping on the Coromandel Peninsula in April 1989.
At the first trial, the Crown’s case was Tamihere, who was living in the bush at the time, murdered the Swedish couple somewhere near Crosbies Clearing.
They relied on evidence of two trampers who identified Tamihere as a man they encountered at Crosbies Clearing with a woman who fit a description of Paakkonen on April 8.
Tamihere admitted stealing the Swedish pair’s car from a nearby road and dumping or selling their possessions - but maintained he did not kill them
In 1991, ahead of Tamihere’s appeal, Höglin’s skeletal remains were found in Wentworth Valley - quite some distance from Crosbies Clearing.
The initial trial had also included evidence from prison snitch Roberto Conchie Harris - then known was Witness C.
In 2017, Harris was convicted of perjury. At that first trial, Harris claimed Tamihere said he beat Höglin about the head with a lump of wood, dumped his body at sea and gave Höglin’s watch to his son - all of which were proved to be wrong after Höglin’s body was discovered in 1991. Paakkonen’s body has never been found.
Then in 2020, Tamihere was granted the legal lifeline of a Royal Prerogative of Mercy.
His case was then heard by the Court of Appeal in 2023, which again dismissed his appeal, but found the inclusion of Harris’ evidence may have affected the verdicts and amounted to a miscarriage of justice. The Court of Appeal said other evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that he murdered the Swedish couple.
The Supreme Court appeal
Last December, the Supreme Court granted leave to Tamihere, with the approved question being whether the Court of Appeal was correct not to exercise its jurisdiction and quash his convictions.
On Monday, Murray Gibson outlined the six points that meant Tamihere could not have a fair trial. He said prison snitch Roberto Conchie Harris’ evidence was introduced where he claimed Tamihere had admitted killing the couple.
His evidence supported two trampers who claimed they had spoken with Tamihere at Crosbie’s Clearing with a woman.\
Gibson said the trampers were initially unable to identify the two people said to be at Crosbies Clearing - but they later identified Tamihere after he was “paraded” outside a District Court where he admitted stealing their car and items.
It was only after seeing him that day did they identified him as the man they claimed to have seen with a woman, Gibson said. Those trampers also said the woman was wearing lots of make up - again, Gibson said this contradicted what was known of Paakkonen’s time in New Zealand.
The officer in charge of the case later characterised their evidence as being tainted due to contact with the police and investigation team.
“This was an extraordinary admission,” Gibson said.
Another “significant” point was the evidence of Duane Davenport - a man who had boarded with Tamihere - had been interviewed six times by police. It was only in the last conversation he mentioned Höglin’s watch that he said Tamihere had given to his son.
Gibson said the evidence of the watch - which was later found with Höglin’s remains - provided confirmation that his evidence was false.
The final ground was the affidavit of the late Sir Robert Jones. He said the police officer in charge of the case had told him the day after Tamihere was convicted that he’d “nailed” him.
“I replied, ‘well done’ and added that from the newspaper reports I didn’t think he’d had much on him. He replied that he didn’t and told me to listen. Jabbing me in the chest, he said, ‘I’m telling you the bastard did it. I got him on three points. I made them all up. But’, he repeated, ‘the bastard did it.” …,“ Jones said in the affidavit.
The affidavit undermines the integrity of the trial and rule of law, Gibson said.
Over the course of Gibson’s submissions, he was questioned at various times by the judges, including a lot of back and forth around locations.
Justice Susan Glazebrook asked if Gibson relied on the location where the body was located.
Gibson said the first trial proceeded on the fact the bodies were to be located near Crosbies Clearing - Höglin’s body was later found 75km away by road and then a further 3-4 hour walk.
The Chief Justice also interjected that it was “extremely tempting” to work out what happened but that was not the role of this court.
Another one of Tamihere’s legal team, James Carruthers, said there were numerous grounds why the trial was tainted.
“When you combine all those facts, they must amount to a trial that had gone fundamentally off the rails or a defect to the proceedings,” Carruthers said.
While the Crown lawyers have yet to have their chance to make submissions, in their written submissions they said that the court can be sure beyond reasonable doubt of Tamihere’s guilt.
“Considering evidence of Mr Höglin’s remains and Mr Tamihere’s association with nearby locations puts Mr Tamihere’s statements before and during trial in a new light: one which, rather than exonerating Mr Tamihere, is more damning.”
supreme-court-hears-david-tamiheres-appeal-swedish-backpacker-murders
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue/resource. 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;
-------------------------------------------------------------------
