David Tamihere's trial was 'fundamentally defective', lawyers argue
Photo:
RNZ
The lawyer for convicted double murderer David Tamihere has described his trial as fundamentally defective, as the Supreme Court hears his appeal at the High Court in Auckland on Monday.
Five Supreme Court judges are hearing arguments on whether the Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling was right to not quash his convictions.
Tamihere has always denied killing Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21), and
served 20 years of a life sentence
.
His lawyers are appealing
an earlier Court of Appeal ruling
that found a miscarriage of justice, but upheld his convictions.
In court on Monday morning, Tamihere's lawyer Murray Gibson outlined the three grounds of his submissions.
"Multiple breaches of fair trial rights relating to the evidence of principal Crown witnesses, fundamental error in that the Crown no longer subscribes to the case advanced at trial or evidence on which the jury were invited to find the defendant culpable of the homicide," he said.
"Thirdly, relates to the constitutional role of the jury."
Monday morning was spent with Tamihere's lawyers giving a summary of their case, but deviated briefly to examine a map of the area Höglin and Paakkonen were said to have been exploring at the time of their
disappearance in 1989
, and where crews searched for them afterward.
Part of the Crown evidence in the original 1990 trial was false, coming from a prison informant later convicted of perjury.
Gibson referenced this when addressing the panel of judges.
Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21).
Photo:
Supplied
"The Crown retreated from the theory put forward at trial, and advanced two subsequent explanations. It drew on evidence and propositions that have since been discredited."
This meant when the jury came to consider Tamihere's guilt, it did so within a discarded framework, Gibson said.
"This must be, in council's submission, a sign of a fundamentally defective trial."
Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann said it was extremely tempting to try and work out what happened to the tourists.
"But that's certainly not the task of this court."
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter
curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
Law & society: Govt review of NZ's legal aid system cannot threaten access to justice
David Harvey: "There can be no higher calling than the defence of the liberty of the subject." Photo / Getty Images When Clarence Earle Gideon was charged with burglary in Florida in 1961, he was too poor to pay for a lawyer and the court could not appoint counsel to represent him. Gideon was convicted and sentenced to prison. He appealed the decision that denied him counsel and the case went all the way to the US Supreme Court. Abe Fortas argued Gideon's case pro bono, which seemed apt. The Supreme Court held that Gideon had a constitutional right to a lawyer, funded by the state. Fortas later went on to become a Supreme Court Justice. I often reflected on Gideon's case when I sat in court in my early days in practice, when defendant after defendant, unrepresented, pleaded and was dealt with. It just seemed wrong. The complexities of the law were beyond most of these people, who just wanted to get the case out of the way. Legal aid was available, but not as extensively as now. In the early 1970s, committed lawyers made their time available pro bono to establish a duty lawyer scheme to advise people about their options when facing a criminal scheme was taken up by the government and is now an established part of the criminal justice system. Duty lawyers can now make initial appearances for a defendant pending a legal aid grant. The Bill of Rights Act 1990 enshrines the right to counsel. Everyone charged with an offence shall have the right to consult and instruct a lawyer and to receive legal assistance without cost if they have insufficient means and the interests of justice require it. The government is now reviewing the legal aid scheme. The review is wider than the provision of legal aid in criminal matters. The objective is to ensure the legal aid scheme is efficient and sustainable while also promoting access to justice. Legal aid is under pressure but that cannot mean those who need representation should be denied it. There are fears funding cuts will reduce access and force a return to people self-representing, to the detriment of the court system. In a criminal justice system where there is a presumption of innocence on the part of the person charged and a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the prosecution, the right to counsel is critical. Although the prosecuting state has access to significant resources not enjoyed by the defence, the right to counsel, while not introducing equality of arms, provides a bulwark against the power of the state. There can be no higher calling than the defence of the liberty of the subject. In 2004, a new plan was devised to provide representation for legally aided defendants and a pilot for a Public Defence Service was set up servicing the Auckland and Manukau courts. I was a strong supporter of the PDS. From my early days as a lawyer, I had felt the need for such a service. Initially, there was push-back from the criminal bar. It was felt that the PDS would reduce the number of legal aid cases available to lawyers. But over time, the PDS established its credentials both with the legal profession and with the courts and judges. Four senior PDS lawyers have been elevated to the district court bench. Today, the PDS is located in 10 cities across the country in district and higher courts, and oversees the duty lawyer scheme in these centres. Committed criminal defence lawyers, most of them remunerated by legal aid, work alongside PDS lawyers, often earning less than they would in private practice, ensuring that the criminal process is carried out properly and with integrity in the interests of their clients. It is, without doubt, a frontline service. In this regard, criminal defence lawyers and legal aid funding are critical cogs in the criminal justice system and ensure an effective right to counsel, so important in Gideon's case and enshrined in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. David Harvey is a retired district court judge.
RNZ News
15 hours ago
- RNZ News
David Tamihere attemps to clear name in Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has begun hearing from lawyers for convicted double murderer David Tamihere as he once again attempts to clear his name. The Five Supreme Court judges are hearing arguments in the High Court at Auckland on whether an earlier Court of Appeal ruling was right to not quash his convictions. Tamihere denies killing Swedish tourists Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen, having served 20 years of a life sentence. His lawyers have argued this trial went off the rails, and was fundamentally defective. Finn Blackwell reports. To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following: See terms of use.
RNZ News
20 hours ago
- RNZ News
David Tamihere's trial was 'fundamentally defective', lawyers argue
David Tamihere. Photo: RNZ The lawyer for convicted double murderer David Tamihere has described his trial as fundamentally defective, as the Supreme Court hears his appeal at the High Court in Auckland on Monday. Five Supreme Court judges are hearing arguments on whether the Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling was right to not quash his convictions. Tamihere has always denied killing Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21), and served 20 years of a life sentence . His lawyers are appealing an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that found a miscarriage of justice, but upheld his convictions. In court on Monday morning, Tamihere's lawyer Murray Gibson outlined the three grounds of his submissions. "Multiple breaches of fair trial rights relating to the evidence of principal Crown witnesses, fundamental error in that the Crown no longer subscribes to the case advanced at trial or evidence on which the jury were invited to find the defendant culpable of the homicide," he said. "Thirdly, relates to the constitutional role of the jury." Monday morning was spent with Tamihere's lawyers giving a summary of their case, but deviated briefly to examine a map of the area Höglin and Paakkonen were said to have been exploring at the time of their disappearance in 1989 , and where crews searched for them afterward. Part of the Crown evidence in the original 1990 trial was false, coming from a prison informant later convicted of perjury. Gibson referenced this when addressing the panel of judges. Swedish tourists Urban Höglin (23) and Heidi Paakkonen (21). Photo: Supplied "The Crown retreated from the theory put forward at trial, and advanced two subsequent explanations. It drew on evidence and propositions that have since been discredited." This meant when the jury came to consider Tamihere's guilt, it did so within a discarded framework, Gibson said. "This must be, in council's submission, a sign of a fundamentally defective trial." Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann said it was extremely tempting to try and work out what happened to the tourists. "But that's certainly not the task of this court." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
