PASSAGE OF THE DAY: "One of the officers continued giving evidence today and was asked why he failed to meet that basic legal principle. The former officers claim it was the Crown's responsibility - not theirs - to inform Alan Hall's defence team that witness Ronald Turner had said he saw a tall Māori man, who did not resemble Alan Hall, running away from the murder scene."
-----------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "Even if Hall's team had been told, one of the officers' defence lawyers, David Jones KC, asked in court if it would have made any difference, considering the other evidence they had: the ownership of the bayonet used in the crime; a hat found at the scene connected to Hall; the lies told to police; or the fact both the offender and Hall were left-handed. The former officer replied that it did not. Nor, the court was told, did Turner's evidence affect the evidence of burnt clothing found in Hall's incinerator; that he had no alibi; or that the suspicious man spotted that night was running in the direction of Hall's home."
------------------------------------------
PASSAGE THREE OF THE DAY: "Crown prosecutor John Billington KC questioned the former officer about numerous requests from Hall's legal team for information relating to the case. The former officer told the court that responsibility lay with his co-defendant. "Matters in terms of response to the solicitors was actioned by my colleague," he said."
-------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FOUR THE DAY: "Billington queried how an officer with over a decade's experience did not realise how important Turner's evidence could have been. "You were aware from the day of the homicide that Mr Turner had said he'd seen a Māori in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is that correct?" The former officer acknowledged this, and also that Turner had given a more detailed statement the day after the murder. "As a result of that statement you publicised, not only were you looking for a Māori as the offender but also you were looking a Māori as a lookout, correct?" Billington asked. "That was certainly recorded in the news article. I can't remember today exactly what I said," the man replied."
---------------------------------------------
PASSAGE FIVE OF THE DAY: "The defence called as an expert witness former Detective Inspector Maurice Whitham, who, along with investigating 19 homicides, was one of the lead officers investigating the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985. He was asked to give his assessment of the reliability of Turner's ethnicity evidence. "The descriptions vary - one minute he's five-foot-six, five-foot-seven on a job sheet. Now he's five-foot-six to six-foot. Why does that change overnight?" Prosecutor) Billington replied that this was a matter for the court. "Yes it is, but the same token, he on two or three occasions said that he could not identify facial features," Whitham said. Regardless, he said it was ultimately for the Crown - not police - to decide whether evidence should be included or not. "The police engage the Crown as their legal officers, if you like, to conduct the prosecution of the accused and the police would finish the inquiries and basically hand the file. "Our job was finished once we had completed the investigation and briefed the file."
------------------------------------------
STORY: " Arthur Easton Murder: Ex-Officer testifies about withheld evidence statement," by Journalist Matthew Theunissen, published by Radio New Zealand (RNZ) on July 16, 2026.
SUB-HEADING: "One of the officers said other evidence, such as the ownership of a hat and bayonet connected with the killing, wouldn't have been affected by the withholding of a witness's statement
GIST: "A witness's first description of a suspect should always be provided to the defence because it may be more accurate than later recollections.
Those were the words from the judge presiding over the trial of Alan Hall for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton.
Why, then, was the ethnicity of a man seen running away from the crime scene not presented to the jury at Hall's trial and subsequent appeals?
That's the crux of the case against two former police officers on trial in the High Court at Auckland, accused of perverting the course of justice.
One of the officers continued giving evidence today and was asked why he failed to meet that basic legal principle.
The former officers claim it was the Crown's responsibility - not theirs - to inform Alan Hall's defence team that witness Ronald Turner had said he saw a tall Māori man, who did not resemble Alan Hall, running away from the murder scene.
Even if Hall's team had been told, one of the officers' defence lawyers, David Jones KC, asked in court if it would have made any difference, considering the other evidence they had: the ownership of the bayonet used in the crime; a hat found at the scene connected to Hall; the lies told to police; or the fact both the offender and Hall were left-handed.
The former officer replied that it did not.
Nor, the court was told, did Turner's evidence affect the evidence of burnt clothing found in Hall's incinerator; that he had no alibi; or that the suspicious man spotted that night was running in the direction of Hall's home.
Crown prosecutor John Billington KC questioned the former officer about numerous requests from Hall's legal team for information relating to the case.
The former officer told the court that responsibility lay with his co-defendant.
"Matters in terms of response to the solicitors was actioned by my colleague," he said.
Billington queried how an officer with over a decade's experience did not realise how important Turner's evidence could have been.
"You were aware from the day of the homicide that Mr Turner had said he'd seen a Māori in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is that correct?"
The former officer acknowledged this, and also that Turner had given a more detailed statement the day after the murder.
"As a result of that statement you publicised, not only were you looking for a Māori as the offender but also you were looking a Māori as a lookout, correct?" Billington asked.
"That was certainly recorded in the news article. I can't remember today exactly what I said," the man replied.
Billington read the former officer an extract from the judge's closing statement at Hall's trial about the importance of descriptions first given by witnesses to police.
"That is because, for the obvious reasons, the first description may well be more accurate than the later recollections and it enables the defence to test the evidence relative to the identity which is given by the witness later on," he said.
"The Turner statements had not been provided at that date, had they?"
"I don't believe they had," the man replied.
Former detective called as expert witness
The defence called as an expert witness former Detective Inspector Maurice Whitham, who, along with investigating 19 homicides, was one of the lead officers investigating the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.
He was asked to give his assessment of the reliability of Turner's ethnicity evidence.
"The descriptions vary - one minute he's five-foot-six, five-foot-seven on a job sheet. Now he's five-foot-six to six-foot. Why does that change overnight?"
Billington replied that this was a matter for the court.
"Yes it is, but the same token, he on two or three occasions said that he could not identify facial features," Whitham said.
Regardless, he said it was ultimately for the Crown - not police - to decide whether evidence should be included or not.
"The police engage the Crown as their legal officers, if you like, to conduct the prosecution of the accused and the police would finish the inquiries and basically hand the file.
"Our job was finished once we had completed the investigation and briefed the file."
The defence called two old colleagues of one of the former officers to provide character evidence, Stuart Mangnall and Stewart Mills.
"[The defendant] I'll say straight off was scrupulous and honest and was not one to cut corners," Mangnall said.
Mills said it was a pleasure to work with him
"He was fair, scrupulous, tended to be very good with people."
The trial continues."
The entire story can be read at:
https://share.google/HmOiMQHfqfd6D8U01
SUB-HEADING: "One of the officers said other evidence, such as the ownership of a hat and bayonet connected with the killing, wouldn't have been affected by the withholding of a witness's statement
GIST: "A witness's first description of a suspect should always be provided to the defence because it may be more accurate than later recollections.
Those were the words from the judge presiding over the trial of Alan Hall for the 1985 murder of Arthur Easton.
Why, then, was the ethnicity of a man seen running away from the crime scene not presented to the jury at Hall's trial and subsequent appeals?
That's the crux of the case against two former police officers on trial in the High Court at Auckland, accused of perverting the course of justice.
One of the officers continued giving evidence today and was asked why he failed to meet that basic legal principle.
The former officers claim it was the Crown's responsibility - not theirs - to inform Alan Hall's defence team that witness Ronald Turner had said he saw a tall Māori man, who did not resemble Alan Hall, running away from the murder scene.
Even if Hall's team had been told, one of the officers' defence lawyers, David Jones KC, asked in court if it would have made any difference, considering the other evidence they had: the ownership of the bayonet used in the crime; a hat found at the scene connected to Hall; the lies told to police; or the fact both the offender and Hall were left-handed.
The former officer replied that it did not.
Nor, the court was told, did Turner's evidence affect the evidence of burnt clothing found in Hall's incinerator; that he had no alibi; or that the suspicious man spotted that night was running in the direction of Hall's home.
Crown prosecutor John Billington KC questioned the former officer about numerous requests from Hall's legal team for information relating to the case.
The former officer told the court that responsibility lay with his co-defendant.
"Matters in terms of response to the solicitors was actioned by my colleague," he said.
Billington queried how an officer with over a decade's experience did not realise how important Turner's evidence could have been.
"You were aware from the day of the homicide that Mr Turner had said he'd seen a Māori in the vicinity of the scene of the crime, is that correct?"
The former officer acknowledged this, and also that Turner had given a more detailed statement the day after the murder.
"As a result of that statement you publicised, not only were you looking for a Māori as the offender but also you were looking a Māori as a lookout, correct?" Billington asked.
"That was certainly recorded in the news article. I can't remember today exactly what I said," the man replied.
Billington read the former officer an extract from the judge's closing statement at Hall's trial about the importance of descriptions first given by witnesses to police.
"That is because, for the obvious reasons, the first description may well be more accurate than the later recollections and it enables the defence to test the evidence relative to the identity which is given by the witness later on," he said.
"The Turner statements had not been provided at that date, had they?"
"I don't believe they had," the man replied.
Former detective called as expert witness
The defence called as an expert witness former Detective Inspector Maurice Whitham, who, along with investigating 19 homicides, was one of the lead officers investigating the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior in 1985.
He was asked to give his assessment of the reliability of Turner's ethnicity evidence.
"The descriptions vary - one minute he's five-foot-six, five-foot-seven on a job sheet. Now he's five-foot-six to six-foot. Why does that change overnight?"
Billington replied that this was a matter for the court.
"Yes it is, but the same token, he on two or three occasions said that he could not identify facial features," Whitham said.
Regardless, he said it was ultimately for the Crown - not police - to decide whether evidence should be included or not.
"The police engage the Crown as their legal officers, if you like, to conduct the prosecution of the accused and the police would finish the inquiries and basically hand the file.
"Our job was finished once we had completed the investigation and briefed the file."
The defence called two old colleagues of one of the former officers to provide character evidence, Stuart Mangnall and Stewart Mills.
"[The defendant] I'll say straight off was scrupulous and honest and was not one to cut corners," Mangnall said.
Mills said it was a pleasure to work with him
"He was fair, scrupulous, tended to be very good with people."
The trial continues."
The entire story can be read at:
https://share.google/HmOiMQHfqfd6D8U01
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;
