PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I will be following this trial 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 ex-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.
-------------------------------------------------
QUOTE OF THE DAY: "The court yesterday heard from former High Court judge Justice Kit Toogood, KC, who was called as an expert witness in the case against the police officers. He was asked whether it was acceptable to leave such evidence out, even if police deemed it unreliable. "I don't believe that's any ground at all. Reliability was a matter for the jury or the decider of fact in the trial," he said. "The fact that either the police or the Crown prosecutor might have thought the evidence was unreliable was not relevant to the decision or the obligation of disclosure." Toogood stressed how crucial Turner's evidence could have been to the trial. "He was at pains, in a subsequent interview by the police, to stress his certainty about the ethnicity of the person he'd seen running away."
--------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "Turner was summonsed to give evidence ahead of Hall's trial, but the day he was due to appear in court was told a written affidavit was sufficient. But he would later learn that his evidence about the man's ethnicity had been left off that document. Turner read from another statement he made in 1988. "I have now re-read my court statement and compared it with my earlier statement to the police. I now note the important point that I definitely identified the person as being of Māori race has been omitted from my court statement," he said. "I'm extremely surprised at this omission, not apparent to me before, particularly after the police sergeant had tested me at length on this very point and made an issue of it. "I still believe that the person I saw that night was a Māori person and that would have been evidence in court. And the police certainly knew that I was definite in that identification."
----------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Paul Wicks KC, who is representing one of the former police officers, asked whether Justice Toogood accepted that assessing the relevance of evidence was subjective. "Yes, I do. But I think if you're talking about this case, I don't agree that this was a marginal case. "I think the materiality of Mr Turner's descriptions of the person he saw as Māori was obviously highly material."
------------------------------------------
STORY: "Arthur Easton murder: Ethnicity of suspect debated in High Court, by Reporter Matthew Theunissen, published by '1 News', on July 7, 2026.
Police officers accused of withholding vital evidence in Alan Hall case
The investigation led to the wrongful conviction of Hall in the 1980s
Police officers accused of withholding vital evidence in Alan Hall case2:04
The investigation led to the wrongful conviction of Hall in the 1980s (Source: 1News)
Turner's former wife Linda Burrows also gave evidence today.
She had previously backed up Turner's account of what had happened, but in a subsequent statement said it was in fact her who had seen the man fleeing from the crime scene.
"That's how I remember it – I was the one that saw him and said, 'that Māori guy over there looks suspicious'," she said
"It's just that they said Ron said it when I said it."
When she saw him being quoted about the sighting she told him: "This is funny, isn't it?"
"I said, 'well, at the end of the day it's exactly what happened so it doesn't matter'."
Burrows said the man was wearing a hoodie and a balaclava.
She was asked about an earlier statement in which she said: "He was a Māori was my first impression. It could be wrong".
"Well, it could be," she replied. "I mean, I didn't have a really good look – he had a balaclava on. To me, that was what my first impression was when I saw the person."
'For a jury, not the police to decide'
The court yesterday heard from former High Court judge Justice Kit Toogood, KC, who was called as an expert witness in the case against the police officers.
He was asked whether it was acceptable to leave such evidence out, even if police deemed it unreliable.
"I don't believe that's any ground at all. Reliability was a matter for the jury or the decider of fact in the trial," he said.
"The fact that either the police or the Crown prosecutor might have thought the evidence was unreliable was not relevant to the decision or the obligation of disclosure."
Toogood stressed how crucial Turner's evidence could have been to the trial.
"He was at pains, in a subsequent interview by the police, to stress his certainty about the ethnicity of the person he'd seen running away."
Paul Wicks KC, who is representing one of the former police officers, asked whether Justice Toogood accepted that assessing the relevance of evidence was subjective.
"Yes, I do. But I think if you're talking about this case, I don't agree that this was a marginal case.
"I think the materiality of Mr Turner's descriptions of the person he saw as Māori was obviously highly material."
Hall has appeared in court every day since the trial began last Monday.
The judge-alone trial, before Justice Gault, is expected to run into next week.""
GIST: "A man who saw someone running from the scene of Arthur Easton's murder in 1985 says he still believes the person he saw was Māori.
The ethnicity of the suspect is important as Alan Hall – the man wrongly convicted of the murder – is Pākehā and went on to serve 17 years in prison.
Two former senior police officers have gone on trial at the High Court in Auckland, charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
They both have name suppression and have pleaded not guilty.
Witness Ronald Turner was in a car with his then-wife when he saw the man running in October 1985.
Easton had just been murdered by a bayonet-wielding home invader.
A key element of the Crown's case is the evidence of Turner's description of a man he says he saw running away from the crime scene.
Turner was driving through Papakura that night and says he saw someone acting suspiciously and running across Clevedon Rd.
He read from a written statement recorded by a detective the day after the murder.
"I would describe the guy as being a male Māori and his height would be between 5'7" and 6'. I am 5'6" and he was definitely taller than me.
"When he turned around, I could see that he was definitely dark skinned. He was not white."
He said the man was of average build and appeared to be in his 20s.
Hall, who was 23 at the time, is 5'7" and Pākehā.
Several months after the murder, Turner gave a further statement to police in which he said he was "100% sure" the man he saw was Māori.
Turner was summonsed to give evidence ahead of Hall's trial, but the day he was due to appear in court was told a written affidavit was sufficient.
But he would later learn that his evidence about the man's ethnicity had been left off that document.
Turner read from another statement he made in 1988.
"I have now re-read my court statement and compared it with my earlier statement to the police. I now note the important point that I definitely identified the person as being of Māori race has been omitted from my court statement," he said.
"I'm extremely surprised at this omission, not apparent to me before, particularly after the police sergeant had tested me at length on this very point and made an issue of it.
"I still believe that the person I saw that night was a Māori person and that would have been evidence in court. And the police certainly knew that I was definite in that identification."
Under cross-examination from David Jones KC, Turner was asked why there was a correction to the term "100%" in his statement. He conceded that he had initially written 95%.
"That was my immediate impression," he told the court.
"I still believe that it was a Māori guy."
Turner was asked why he had described the man as being between five foot six and five foot seven in his call to police on the night of the murder, not up to six foot as he would say the following day.
"Is it that you heard on the radio that the police were looking for a male Māori about six foot?" Jones asked
Turner denied this.
Jones asked why the witness had repeatedly used the word "feel" to describe why he thought the person he saw was Māori.
"Was that word in your statement because that is essentially what you were doing? It was your sense that the person was Māori?"
"Yup," Turner replied.
The lawyer continued. "Does it boil down to this: That your impression from mannerisms and movements was that the person was Māori?"
Turner also accepted this.
"At the end of the day it's exactly what happened so it doesn't matter."
Two former senior police officers have gone on trial at the High Court in Auckland, charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice.
They both have name suppression and have pleaded not guilty.
Witness Ronald Turner was in a car with his then-wife when he saw the man running in October 1985.
Easton had just been murdered by a bayonet-wielding home invader.
A key element of the Crown's case is the evidence of Turner's description of a man he says he saw running away from the crime scene.
Turner was driving through Papakura that night and says he saw someone acting suspiciously and running across Clevedon Rd.
He read from a written statement recorded by a detective the day after the murder.
"I would describe the guy as being a male Māori and his height would be between 5'7" and 6'. I am 5'6" and he was definitely taller than me.
"When he turned around, I could see that he was definitely dark skinned. He was not white."
He said the man was of average build and appeared to be in his 20s.
Hall, who was 23 at the time, is 5'7" and Pākehā.
Several months after the murder, Turner gave a further statement to police in which he said he was "100% sure" the man he saw was Māori.
Turner was summonsed to give evidence ahead of Hall's trial, but the day he was due to appear in court was told a written affidavit was sufficient.
But he would later learn that his evidence about the man's ethnicity had been left off that document.
Turner read from another statement he made in 1988.
"I have now re-read my court statement and compared it with my earlier statement to the police. I now note the important point that I definitely identified the person as being of Māori race has been omitted from my court statement," he said.
"I'm extremely surprised at this omission, not apparent to me before, particularly after the police sergeant had tested me at length on this very point and made an issue of it.
"I still believe that the person I saw that night was a Māori person and that would have been evidence in court. And the police certainly knew that I was definite in that identification."
Under cross-examination from David Jones KC, Turner was asked why there was a correction to the term "100%" in his statement. He conceded that he had initially written 95%.
"That was my immediate impression," he told the court.
"I still believe that it was a Māori guy."
Turner was asked why he had described the man as being between five foot six and five foot seven in his call to police on the night of the murder, not up to six foot as he would say the following day.
"Is it that you heard on the radio that the police were looking for a male Māori about six foot?" Jones asked
Turner denied this.
Jones asked why the witness had repeatedly used the word "feel" to describe why he thought the person he saw was Māori.
"Was that word in your statement because that is essentially what you were doing? It was your sense that the person was Māori?"
"Yup," Turner replied.
The lawyer continued. "Does it boil down to this: That your impression from mannerisms and movements was that the person was Māori?"
Turner also accepted this.
"At the end of the day it's exactly what happened so it doesn't matter."
Police officers accused of withholding vital evidence in Alan Hall case
The investigation led to the wrongful conviction of Hall in the 1980s
Police officers accused of withholding vital evidence in Alan Hall case2:04
The investigation led to the wrongful conviction of Hall in the 1980s (Source: 1News)
Turner's former wife Linda Burrows also gave evidence today.
She had previously backed up Turner's account of what had happened, but in a subsequent statement said it was in fact her who had seen the man fleeing from the crime scene.
"That's how I remember it – I was the one that saw him and said, 'that Māori guy over there looks suspicious'," she said
"It's just that they said Ron said it when I said it."
When she saw him being quoted about the sighting she told him: "This is funny, isn't it?"
"I said, 'well, at the end of the day it's exactly what happened so it doesn't matter'."
Burrows said the man was wearing a hoodie and a balaclava.
She was asked about an earlier statement in which she said: "He was a Māori was my first impression. It could be wrong".
"Well, it could be," she replied. "I mean, I didn't have a really good look – he had a balaclava on. To me, that was what my first impression was when I saw the person."
'For a jury, not the police to decide'
The court yesterday heard from former High Court judge Justice Kit Toogood, KC, who was called as an expert witness in the case against the police officers.
He was asked whether it was acceptable to leave such evidence out, even if police deemed it unreliable.
"I don't believe that's any ground at all. Reliability was a matter for the jury or the decider of fact in the trial," he said.
"The fact that either the police or the Crown prosecutor might have thought the evidence was unreliable was not relevant to the decision or the obligation of disclosure."
Toogood stressed how crucial Turner's evidence could have been to the trial.
"He was at pains, in a subsequent interview by the police, to stress his certainty about the ethnicity of the person he'd seen running away."
Paul Wicks KC, who is representing one of the former police officers, asked whether Justice Toogood accepted that assessing the relevance of evidence was subjective.
"Yes, I do. But I think if you're talking about this case, I don't agree that this was a marginal case.
"I think the materiality of Mr Turner's descriptions of the person he saw as Māori was obviously highly material."
Hall has appeared in court every day since the trial began last Monday.
The judge-alone trial, before Justice Gault, is expected to run into next week.""
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;
