Hall v The the Queen - [2022] NZSC 71

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 21/2022
[2022] NZSC 71

BETWEEN	ALAN RUSSELL HALL Appellant
AND	THE QUEEN Respondent

Hearing:	8 June 2022
Court:	Winkelmann CJ, O’Regan, Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	N P Chisnall and L A Elborough for Appellant M F Laracy and E J Hoskin for Respondent
Oral judgment:	8 June 2022

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

B The convictions of the appellant are quashed.

COrder under s 385(2) of the Crimes Act 1961 directing that verdicts of acquittal be entered.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS
(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Para No
Introduction	[1]
Factual background	[4]
Mr Turner’s evidence	[12]
Non-disclosure	[25]
Mr Hall’s statements in interviews with police	[33]
Conclusion	[40]
Result	[43]

Introduction

After a trial by jury in September 1986, Alan Hall was convicted of the murder of Arthur Easton and of intentionally wounding Brendon Easton. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Maintaining his innocence, Mr Hall sought leave to appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal.[1] His application was dismissed in 1987.[2] Mr Hall was released on parole in November 1994 and lived in the community for the following 18 years before being recalled to prison on an interim basis in May 2012 for breaching a condition of his parole. Recall became final in June 2012. Mr Hall was again released on parole in February 2022. Mr Hall applied unsuccessfully on three occasions for the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy.[3] He now appeals, with leave, against conviction to this Court.[4]
[1]A separate judgment will be issued explaining the basis on which the Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
[2]R v Hall [1987] 1 NZLR 616 (CA) [CA judgment].
[3]Twice in 1988 and once in 1993.
[4]Hall v R [2022] NZSC 51.
The Crown accepts that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed, and verdicts of acquittal entered. It accepts the appellant’s characterisation of this case as “a trial gone wrong” and that significant parts of the criminal justice system failed Mr Hall, causing him serious harm.
We now briefly explain why we consider that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the interests of justice require verdicts of acquittal to be entered.[5] The brevity of these reasons is not intended to downplay the importance of our conclusion to Mr Hall. Rather, it reflects the need for these matters to be addressed without any further delay and also it reflects the clear merits of the appeal.

Factual background

[5]These proceedings were commenced before the commencement date of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 so the appeal is determined under Part 13 of the Crimes Act 1961: Criminal Procedure Act, s 397. Counsel for Mr Hall and for the Crown agreed in writing to the bringing of the appeal to this Court rather than to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council: Supreme Court Act 2003, ss…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hall v The the Queen

Details

AGLC: Hall v The the Queen [2022] NZSC 71
Case: [2022] NZSC 71
Decision Date: 8 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New Zealand, the appeal of Alan Hall against his conviction for the murder of Arthur Easton and the wounding of Brendon Easton was heard and determined. Hall had been sentenced to life imprisonment after a trial by jury in 1986, but had maintained his innocence and sought leave to appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal, which was dismissed in 1987. Hall was released on parole in 1994 and lived in the community for 18 years before being recalled to prison in 2012 for breaching a condition of his parole. Hall applied unsuccessfully on three occasions for the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy and now appeals, with leave, against conviction to this Court. The Crown accepts that the appeal should be allowed, the convictions quashed, and verdicts of acquittal entered, acknowledging the appellant’s characterisation of this case as “a trial gone wrong” and that significant parts of the criminal justice system failed Mr Hall, causing him serious harm. The court found that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the interests of justice require verdicts of acquittal to be entered. The appeal is allowed, Mr Hall’s convictions are quashed, and an order is made under s 385(2) of the Crimes Act directing that verdicts of acquittal be entered.

Orders