Autistic man wrongly convicted of murder set free after 19 years

A 60-year-old man named Alan Hall, who spent 19 years in jail for a murder he did not commit, has finally been set free by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The court quashed his conviction after it found that a key piece of evidence was not disclosed during the trial of the case years ago. Hall, who was diagnosed with autism only in 2019, was sent to jail when he was 23 years old for the murder of Arthur Easton in his Papakura home in 1985.

Easton was stabbed by an intruder who used a bayonet. The police had found the weapon and a wool hat at the scene, writes The Independent.

Hall, who used to live a few kilometres away from the victim, was questioned by the police. He had then informed them he owned three Swedish Army bayonets and had borrowed a hat from his brother, but had never even set a foot on Easton's property.

He had appealed against his 1986 conviction several times over the years without success. But this time, it was different after it came to light that a crucial witness statement was deliberately altered, and other important evidence was withheld from Hall and his lawyers.

The Supreme Court, while quashing his conviction accepted that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice in Hall's case. Hall will get to walk as a free man finally on Wednesday.

"The crown accepts that a substantial miscarriage of justice occurred in Mr Hall's case, and that his convictions should be quashed. In the extraordinary circumstances of this case, no order for a retrial is sought. Directed acquittals are invited," said the court.

It was revealed that a key witness had admitted to seeing a "definitely dark-skinned," man running from the property post the crime. But his description had been removed from witness statement, without his knowledge. Hall and his lawyers weren't aware of this until they appealed against the conviction first in 1987.

The court also observed that Hall was interrogated by police without his lawyer's presence. "The crown accepts that there was a point where, more likely than not, the interviews became unfair and oppressive," it added.

The court's judgment forced the Crown Law, the public service department of New Zealand that oversees criminal prosecutions, to accept that it was an "unfair trial."