Wrongful conviction of Alan Hall

Alan Hall was convicted of murdering 61 year old Arthur Easton in New Zealand in 1985. Hall was vulnerable due to being autistic (although this was not diagnosed until 2019). The police subjected him to lengthy interrogations without a lawyer. At the trial, the police failed to disclose important information that would have assisted Hall's defence. Police also added false information to a statement by a key eye witness. At age 23, Hall was sentenced to life in prison. He was released on parole after nine years, but 18 years later, in 2012, he was recalled after allegedly breaching one of his parole conditions. He was released again in March 2022, ten years later. Altogether, he spent 19 years in prison before the Supreme Court in New Zealand acknowledged a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred and overturned his conviction on 8 June 2022.

Background

Arthur Easton and his teenage sons, Brendan and Kim, were attacked in their home in Auckland, New Zealand on 13 October, 1985. Brendan, aged 16 at the time, was in his bedroom studying when he heard a noise at the back door. When he went to investigate, he found an intruder had broken in. An altercation occurred and Brendan screamed for help. His father was in the lounge watching television and came rushing out. His older brother, Kim also joined in the struggle. During the incident, Arthur Easton was stabbed with a bayonet multiple times. Eventually, the offender fled, but left behind three pieces of evidence – a bayonet covered in blood, a woollen beanie and a single muddy footprint. Mr Easton bled to death in the hallway half an hour later. His sons were both injured but survived.

Mr Easton's sons described their attacker to police as a strong, six-foot Maori man, who did the stabbing with his right hand. Another eyewitness, Ronald Turner, told police he saw someone running away from the Easton's home at the time and also described the man as Māori. Alan Hall came to police attention two months later when they were door knocking in the area looking for information. Hall acknowledged he has been out walking that night and that he owned a bayonet and beanie similar to the ones found at the scene.

Hall is pakeha, meaning he is of European ancestry. He was described at the time as "simple and intellectually backward". His mother described him as frail, awkward and shy. He was was also asthmatic, and left handed. At the trial, the two Easton boys who had been attacked did not identify Hall as the intruder, and none of the sightings of someone running away from the scene matched his description. His finger prints were not found at the scene nor on the bayonet. Nevertheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to life in prison.

Hall was released on parole in November 1994 and remained in the community for the next 18 years. He was recalled to prison in 2012 after allegedly breaching one of his parole conditions; he served another ten years before his conviction was finally overturned in June 2022. Over the 19 years he spent in prison, he always maintained he was innocent and appealed his conviction five times. This included three requests for a pardon under the royal prerogative of mercy.

The miscarriage of justice

Evidence withheld

On the way to gaining a conviction, evidence from four witnesses was withheld from the judge and the jury. Turner, who saw the intruder running away, told the police a number of times that the man he was was Maori. Police specifically questioned him about this aspect of his evidence. He was not called to testify at the trial, but his written statement was read to the jury. However, the judge and jury were unaware that the police altered Turner's statement before presenting to the court. They removed his assertion that the man was Maori. Turner, himself, was unaware the police changed his statement until two years later - after Hall had been found guilty. The police also withheld from the court statements from Easton's two sons that the intruder was Maori.

By the time this deception was discovered, Hall had already appealed his conviction and lost. When his conviction was finally overturned in 2022, the Supreme Court noted that as a result of the altered evidence put forward by the police and prosecution, "the trial, the appeal to the Court of Appeal in July 1987, and Mr Hall’s first application for the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, were all undertaken without counsel for Mr Hall being aware that Mr Turner had described a man leaving the scene of the crime who could not have been Mr Hall, a Pākehā male".

False evidence added

Not only did the police remove this information from Turner's statement, they made a false assertion, adding something into it he hadn't said. The altered statement claimed Turner had been shown and identified a blue sweatshirt which belonged to Hall and that he said this matched the sweatshirt of the man he saw running away. Mr Hall’s sister told the court that Hall had been wearing a red sweatshirt when he went out for a walk that night. Turner subsequently stated that the police never showed him a sweatshirt at all. Not only that, it was later discovered that the receipt for the blue sweatshirt showed it had actually been purchased in December 1985, two months after the murder. In 2022 when the Supreme Court finally overturned Hall's conviction, the Court said: "The Crown accepts that, if the statement had not been inappropriately and deliberately altered in the way it was then the jury would have heard evidence that a man who, on Mr Turner’s evidence could not have been Mr Hall, was seen leaving the location of the fatality at the relevant time".

Other suspects

The prosecutor also told the court that all other suspects had been eliminated by the police. This included one particular suspect who had an extensive criminal history, including violence, and was known to have committed burglaries in the neighborhood on the night of the murder. When the Supreme Court finally overturned Hall's conviction in 2022, it said "the police should have disclosed evidence which tended to implicate the other suspect. The defence... had not been provided with all of the available information, including what led police to treat him as a suspect in the first place".

Autism & vulnerability

When he was arrested, police subjected Hall to lengthy interrogations, on one occasion for eight hours, and another for 15 hours on end, without a lawyer or support person present. He gave a number of different answers about no longer having the bayonet and his beanie in his possession, and these differing explanations were seen as evidence of guilt. It was not until 2019, 34 years after the murder, while he was still in prison, that Hall was diagnosed with autism. Due to this condition, psychiatrist Dr Allely, highlighted concerns "about Mr Hall’s ability to cope with the type of questions, the length of the interviews, and about his ability to appropriately respond". Hall's lawyer said the police and prosecution exploited his vulnerability and subjected him to an oppressive and unfair interrogation. Private investigator, Tim McKinnel, was was also involved in Teina Pora's case, said it would have been obvious to the police that Hall was vulnerable and they took advantage of that.

Crown response

In 2022, the Crown finally acknowledged that the police interviews with Hall were “unfair and oppressive”. Chief Justice, Helen Winkelmann, told the court there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice "either from extreme incompetence, or a deliberate strategy to achieve a conviction". On 9 June 2022, New Zealand's solicitor general, Una Jagose QC, announced an investigation would be held into the case, led by Wellington criminal barrister Nicolette Levy QC. The police have also launched an internal review of their handling of the case in 1985. Hall’s lawyer, Nicholas Chisnall, said the family would be seeking financial compensation for the 19 years he spent in prison.