R v M and S — Both defendants acquitted of attempting to pervert justice

Case
The King v M and S
Court
High Court of New Zealand
Judge
Gault J (Attorney-General David Parker, 2018)
Date Decided
12 August 2026
Citation
[2026] NZHC 2343
Topics
criminal procedure, perverting justice, disclosure, name suppression

Background

M and S were each charged with wilfully attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice in connection with the 1985 investigation and prosecution of Alan Hall for the murder of Arthur Easton and wounding of Brendon Easton. Hall was convicted in 1986, but the Supreme Court quashed his convictions in 2022 after finding a serious miscarriage of justice.

The allegations concerned evidence from Mr Turner, who reported seeing a man running near the homicide scene and described that person as Māori in an initial police jobsheet and two later police statements. That description was omitted from the statement ultimately prepared for use as Turner’s evidence at Hall’s depositions and trial. Hall’s defence lawyers also did not receive Turner’s earlier statements.

The Court’s Holding

After a judge-alone trial, Gault J found M not guilty on Charge 1 and S not guilty on Charge 2. The Court entered acquittals for both defendants.

The verdicts concerned the Crown allegations that the defendants had directed or arranged the preparation and signing of Turner’s trial statement while knowing it deliberately omitted the Māori description, and had decided not to disclose Turner’s earlier statements despite a legal obligation to do so. The published verdicts do not set out the Court’s substantive reasons.

Key Takeaways

  • M and S were acquitted of the respective charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice.
  • The prosecution arose from the handling of witness material in the original Operation Easton investigation and prosecution.
  • Interim suppression of the defendants’ and Mr C’s names and identifying details was extended pending applications for permanent suppression.

Why It Matters

The case follows the Supreme Court’s 2022 quashing of Alan Hall’s convictions, but the subsequent prosecution of the two defendants did not result in convictions. The High Court’s verdicts leave the alleged wrongdoing unproven beyond reasonable doubt.

⬇ Download the original opinion (PDF)Archived from the court's official source.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top