Alan Hall miscarriage of justice trial: Auckland judge acquits ex-cops of wrongdoing in murder case
Two elderly retired cops who were excoriated by the Supreme Court in 2022 – accused of either ineptitude or corruption for their help getting Alan Hall wrongly convicted of murder decades earlier – have been found not guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
The defendants, who continue to have interim name suppression, sat in the dock at the High Court at Auckland today as Justice Ian Gault announced his reserved decision nearly a month and a half after their trial began.
In a 127-page judgment issued later in the day that outlined his reasoning, the judge acknowledged that the non-disclosure of a witness statement at Hall’s 1986 trial “had the tendency to prevent a court from doing justice”. He also noted that a third party not on trial “may have made a (serious) mistake”.
But it was “largely speculative” to assume the two defendants on trial knew their actions would lead to the miscarriage of justice, he surmised.
Murmurs of relief emerged from the filled gallery as the verdict was announced during the brief hearing. The men’s supporters later erupted into applause, with the defendants also clapping, after the judge left the courtroom.
Hall, who spent almost every day of the recent trial seated in the courtroom gallery, spent 18 years in prison and more time under lifetime parole conditions before the Supreme Court’s miscarriage of justice finding. He was later given a record payout of nearly $5 million and was issued an official apology from the Government.
Hall, who is autistic but was not diagnosed at the time of his arrest, took today’s decision in his stride as he left the courthouse with his brothers.
“I can only give you an honest answer: f*** me dead, we got the bastards, put them in trial,” he said. “They were found not guilty but I’d like to say to those two police officers, $4.9 million not bad for a f*** up they did, and you can bloody well quote me on that too.”
In a prepared statement, the brothers said they respected the court’s decision even though it was difficult to accept.
“While the verdict did not result in a criminal conviction, some of the facts presented during the trial raised important questions about transparency and fairness,” Greg Hall said. “Every person deserves the right to a fair trial. That right relies on the absolute assurance that all witness evidence presented in court is strictly maintained in its original, unedited state, fully consistent with established evidentiary standards.”
Having not yet read the reasons for the judge’s decision, Geoff Hall said they had to trust the process. His eyes welled as he recalled the hard work their mother had done over the decades to get his brother’s conviction overturned.
“It’s been explained to me by a lot of people that our road came to an end at the Supreme Court – that was our journey,” he said. “This was a side road that the justice system had been abused, and so we were here in support of that and Alan, as a victim. And to an extent, everybody was a victim of what happened in Alan’s trial. We needed to be part of that.”
Geoff Hall said his heart goes out to the family of homicide victim Arthur Easton.
“They still don’t have answers, and that’s not right,” he said.
During his closing address last month, prosecutor John Billington, KC, said multiple expert witnesses over the course of the latest trial described the witness statements of Ronald Turner as potentially “critical” to Hall’s defence in his 1986 murder trial.
Turner was at an intersection in a Papakura neighbourhood on the night of October 13, 1985, when he said he saw a pedestrian run across the street and act suspiciously, looking over his shoulder.
About that same time, Easton had been stabbed to death inside his nearby home with a bayonet that was abandoned at the scene. Police would months later trace the bayonet back to Hall, and the following year he was charged with murder.
But the case had a potential flaw: Hall is a light-skinned Pākehā and Turner insisted to police on three separate occasions that the apparently fleeing pedestrian was a dark-skinned Māori. The victim’s sons had also initially described the intruder as Māori, although they later recanted and said they couldn’t see the person’s skin tone.
A written version of Turner’s statement, omitting the word Māori, was presented at a pre-trial hearing and again at the trial. The defence was not given his original statements before the trial or during the first appeal process, during which defence lawyers specifically asked for any information from the police file relating to racial identification.
Turner’s statements wouldn’t be seen by a New Zealand court until the Supreme Court reviewed the case 37 years after the homicide.
By omitting the Māori reference from the original court document then withholding Turner’s original statements throughout the trial and appeal process, the defendants “enhanced the prosecution case to a significant degree”, Billington argued.
It’s unknown if a jury would have still found Hall guilty or acquitted him had they been presented with all the evidence, Billington said. But by withholding the evidence, the defendants effectively put the final decision “in the hands of ... the police and not in the hands of the court where it belongs”.
Justice Gault agreed to an extent.
“I have no doubt that the omission should not have occurred,” he wrote. “Concern about the reliability of Mr Turner’s description of race was not a sufficient justification for excluding it.”
There was a requirement, he said, for authorities “to act with the utmost candour and fairness making a full, adequate and impartial presentation of the facts”.
But he agreed with the defence that it wasn’t ultimately the defendants’ responsibility to provide the information to the defence.
Defence lawyer David Jones, KC, argued at trial that it was the responsibility of the Crown, not police, to decide what constitutes “evidence” and what is shared with the defence. His client did his duty by participating in the investigation with “great integrity and professionalism”, he said.
A decision was made above the officers’ heads that the racial evidence was inadmissible, Jones said. Even if it was an incorrect decision, it can’t be illegal because it was a genuinely held belief and not a nefarious attempt to sway the outcome of the case, he said.
He and fellow defence lawyer Paul Wicks, KC, also suggested the Supreme Court had been too rigid in its portrayal of how disclosure was treated in the mid-1980s.
“It was fundamentally different from today,” Wicks said. “There was not statutory framework guaranteeing pre-trial disclosure.”
The lawyers had tried to get Justice Gault to dismiss the case earlier, after Turner and his ex-wife gave evidence at this year’s trial about what they saw 40 years ago. Justice Gault declined the earlier application, but in his decision today he acknowledged the evidence from both witnesses was “underwhelming”.
He noted their racial identification appeared to be largely based on “illegitimate factors” such as stereotypes.
“However, if Mr Turner’s ... statement had not omitted reference to race (or the offender being dark skinned) or his previous statements had been disclosed, it may well have affected the defence strategy,” the judge said. “His evidence in 1986 may have been underwhelming as it was in 2026, but he may have been better placed to remember the basis for his description.”
The omission, he said, “precluded the defence from making an informed tactical choice as to the conduct of the defence”.
Ongoing suppression continues to limit the way in which the media can report the trial and the judge’s findings.
Both acquitted defendants have indicated they will be seeking permanent suppression.
In a statement issued directly after the verdict, Assistant Commissioner Investigations Corrie Parnell said police stood by the decision to put the case against the two officers before the courts in light of the Supreme Court decision.
“The onus was on the wider justice system to understand how this was able to occur over many decades,” Parnell said. “It is our view after a thorough investigation decades later that there was an end-to-end justice system failure, but we also recognised that individuals responsible for key steps in the case played a critical role and that needed to be answered in the courts.
“Police accept that we had a part to play in this failure occurring.”
Further comments will be made after the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s report into this matter is released, the assistant commissioner said.
Private investigator Tim McKinnel, who helped the Hall family fight for exoneration, praised the current police team for the work they put into the case against the ex-officers.
“There are still real questions about the conduct of the police, back in the 80s in particular,” he said. “There are other cases – some we’ve already seen, some are yet to come to the fore – that I think will raise questions about the way some of these investigations were conducted.”
Both of the former officers on trial declined to immediately speak with the media after the verdicts.
In a statement released later, the family of Wicks’ client said they were “profoundly relieved” by the judge’s decision and the closure it brings.
“At 76 and in declining health, my father’s physical and mental wellbeing have been significantly affected by this ordeal,” the statement read. “What should have been peaceful retirement years were instead consumed by fear, stress, and uncertainty, as he defended himself against charges concerning investigative decisions made approximately 40 years ago.”
Retirement savings were spent on the defence,
“We remain deeply troubled by how this matter was handled,” the defendant’s family said, explaining that he should have been consulted before the Supreme Court proceedings.
“We urge police leadership to reflect on how such matters are managed, particularly regarding the support and treatment of retired officers facing charges over historic duties,” the family said. “Officers who act in good faith, following the procedures and legal advice available at the time, must be able to trust that their organisation will treat them fairly and provide appropriate support when allegations arise.”
Craig Kapitan is an Auckland-based journalist covering courts and justice. He joined the Herald in 2021 and has reported on courts since 2002 in three newsrooms in the US and New Zealand.