PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I will be following this case very carefully as it is very rare for police officers to be charged with perverting the course of justice decades after their conduct - way over the line - has literally caused an innocent accused person to be convicted of a very serious crime. As you will see below, in Alan Hall's case, the two presumably former police officers are accused are accused of perverting the course of justice by altering the written statement of the key witness, leaving out the reported ethnicity from the statement, while adding other erroneous incriminating information about Alan Hall into the statement and failing to disclose to the defence information about another suspect. These officers have been investigated and charged without bowing to the temptation of police, prosecutors, and politicians to expose heinous police skulduggery to the public eye. In Tim Rees' Ontario case, police officers buried a video (discovered by accident in an unmarked box in the police chief's office, many years after he was convicted by the jury and he had exhausted all his appeals) which utterly cleared Tim Rees, and unequivocally implicated the deceased 10-year-old girl's family's landlord as a viable suspect. But unlike the Hall case, no officer has been charged, it's not clear whether any of the officers (or prosecutors) involved in the investigation have been investigated, the case has hardly received public attention (unlike the Hall case which led to compensation, and public rage at the police conduct which led to his being compensated, and to a reward being offered for information leading to the conviction of the real murderer. To Ontario's great shame, the decision of the three judges who conducted an evidence hearing ordered by the federal minister of justice because of a likely miscarriage of justice is cold, and legalistic, and lacks the fire, the anger one would expect Ontario's highest judges to experience when confronted by such an unforgivable miscarriage of justice of this magnitude. They stayed silent instead of condemning the outrageous, if not criminal police behaviour, which led to the imprisonment of an innocent man. Like the Alan Hall case - 'an unforgivable miscarriage of justice.' Stay tuned, dear readers, That's why I will be following the trial of the two officers in the UK so closely.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.
-------------------------------
BACKGROUND: WIKIPEDIA: "There was no evidence linking Alan Hall to the scene of the crime. At the trial the police suppressed testimony from Easton's children that the intruder was Māori and failed to call a witness who said he saw a Māori man running away from the house. The police altered the written statement from this witness leaving out the reported ethnicity from the statement, while adding other erroneous incriminating information about Alan Hall into the statement. Police failed to disclose to the defence information about another suspect. Aged 23, Hall was found guilty and given a life sentence. He was released on parole after nine years, but was recalled in 2012 after breaching one of his parole conditions. He was released again in March 2022. He spent 19 years in prison overall. The Supreme Court of New Zealand acknowledged a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and overturned his conviction on 8 June 2022. In 2024, two police officers and a prosecutor were charged with perverting the course of justice, and a reward of $100,000 was offered for information leading to the conviction of the real murderer."
Wrongful_conviction_of_Alan_Hall
-----------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "(Prosecutor) Billington said this was either a case of "extreme incompetence or deliberate wrongful strategy." He argued it was a case of the latter. "Mr Hall was convicted on the basis of that evidence, that is by the omission from the one identification witness, of the reference to the ethnicity of the alleged offender. "Without these departures, which I have just identified to you, there was insufficient evidence either to either charge Mr Hall or to convict him. "That, your Honour, is how simple this case is," he told Justice Gault." "By the omission of the most crucial parts of the evidence repeated by Mr Turner on three occasions, the deliberate alteration of the evidence for trial and the failure to disclose Mr Turner's prior statements to the defence and ultimately therefore deprive the defence, the trial judge, the jury and the Court of Appeal led to this unforgivable miscarriage of justice."
----------------------------------------------------------
STORY: "Police officers accused of withholding vital evidence in Alan Hall case," By Matthew Theunissen of RNZ, published on Tuesday, June 30, 2026.
GIST: "The behaviour of two police officers — who withheld vital evidence in an investigation which led to the wrongful conviction of Alan Hall in the 1980s — has been described as an "unforgivable miscarriage of justice".
The two men still cannot be named, but Justice Gault amended a suppression order on Monday, meaning it can be revealed for the first time that the two defendants were police officers involved in the investigation.
They have been charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
Both men have pleaded not guilty.
A third man was also charged over Hall's wrongful conviction, but he has since died.
Aged 23 at the time of his conviction, Hall was sentenced to life in prison for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton in his Papakura home. His sentence was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2022 after he had spent 17 years in prison.
It is alleged the officers deliberately excluded the crucial testimony of witness Ronald Turner, who said the person he had seen running across Clevedon Road on the night of October 13, 1985 was a large Māori man. Hall was a slight, Pākehā man.
Crown prosecutor John Billington KC said had this information been provided to Hall's defence teams, it would have destroyed the police case.
"He [Turner] was interviewed specifically on the issue again of what he had seen and he said 'I'm 100 percent certain the person I saw was a Māori'.
"Mr Hall is and was a 5' 7" Pākehā, so if this identification witness the police were putting forward was correct that that offender was a male Māori nearly six foot tall it, certainly wasn't Mr Hall."
Billington said this was either a case of "extreme incompetence or deliberate wrongful strategy". He argued it was a case of the latter.
"Mr Hall was convicted on the basis of that evidence, that is by the omission from the one identification witness, of the reference to the ethnicity of the alleged offender.
"Without these departures, which I have just identified to you, there was insufficient evidence either to either charge Mr Hall or to convict him.
"That, your Honour, is how simple this case is," he told Justice Gault.
One of the defendant's lawyer's, David Jones KC, accused the prosecution of making "hyperbolic statements" based on Turner's statements.
"We have of course the acknowledgement by Mr Hall that he was the owner of the bayonet, we have the acknowledgement that he had possession of the balaclava - the two items left by the intruder at the scene. We have the five different explanations he gave for no longer having in his possession," he said.
In a brief statement, the other defendant's lawyer Paul Wicks KC said he endorsed Jones' comments.
"I will just simply say that Mr *'s case is that he had no intention to and undertook no acts that were motivated by him seeking to wilfully attempt to prevent, or defeat the course of justice."
The trial is expected to take about two weeks."
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. 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. 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;
GIST: "The behaviour of two police officers — who withheld vital evidence in an investigation which led to the wrongful conviction of Alan Hall in the 1980s — has been described as an "unforgivable miscarriage of justice".
The two men still cannot be named, but Justice Gault amended a suppression order on Monday, meaning it can be revealed for the first time that the two defendants were police officers involved in the investigation.
They have been charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
Both men have pleaded not guilty.
A third man was also charged over Hall's wrongful conviction, but he has since died.
Aged 23 at the time of his conviction, Hall was sentenced to life in prison for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton in his Papakura home. His sentence was quashed by the Supreme Court in 2022 after he had spent 17 years in prison.
It is alleged the officers deliberately excluded the crucial testimony of witness Ronald Turner, who said the person he had seen running across Clevedon Road on the night of October 13, 1985 was a large Māori man. Hall was a slight, Pākehā man.
Crown prosecutor John Billington KC said had this information been provided to Hall's defence teams, it would have destroyed the police case.
"He [Turner] was interviewed specifically on the issue again of what he had seen and he said 'I'm 100 percent certain the person I saw was a Māori'.
"Mr Hall is and was a 5' 7" Pākehā, so if this identification witness the police were putting forward was correct that that offender was a male Māori nearly six foot tall it, certainly wasn't Mr Hall."
Billington said this was either a case of "extreme incompetence or deliberate wrongful strategy". He argued it was a case of the latter.
"Mr Hall was convicted on the basis of that evidence, that is by the omission from the one identification witness, of the reference to the ethnicity of the alleged offender.
"Without these departures, which I have just identified to you, there was insufficient evidence either to either charge Mr Hall or to convict him.
"That, your Honour, is how simple this case is," he told Justice Gault.
"By the omission of the most crucial parts of the evidence repeated by Mr Turner on three occasions, the deliberate alteration of the evidence for trial and the failure to disclose Mr Turner's prior statements to the defence and ultimately therefore deprive the defence, the trial judge, the jury and the Court of Appeal led to this unforgivable miscarriage of justice."
One of the defendant's lawyer's, David Jones KC, accused the prosecution of making "hyperbolic statements" based on Turner's statements.
"We have of course the acknowledgement by Mr Hall that he was the owner of the bayonet, we have the acknowledgement that he had possession of the balaclava - the two items left by the intruder at the scene. We have the five different explanations he gave for no longer having in his possession," he said.
"With respect, the Turner statement needs to be looked at in context."
In a brief statement, the other defendant's lawyer Paul Wicks KC said he endorsed Jones' comments.
"I will just simply say that Mr *'s case is that he had no intention to and undertook no acts that were motivated by him seeking to wilfully attempt to prevent, or defeat the course of justice."
The trial is expected to take about two weeks."
The entire story can be read at:
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. 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. 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;
