New hearing for 1997 murder a 'brave step', lawyer says
Warning: This article includes details of graphic violence and sexual assault.
Lon Reti was found guilty of murdering Leslie Edmonds at a squatters' house in central Christchurch in 1997. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and remains in prison.
But a three-year investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission has found evidence related to Reti's personal history and mental health was not put before the court.
The CCRC released its decision today, saying the information was relevant to Reti's partial defence of provocation.
ADVERTISEMENT
1News understood the jury was not told Reti was abused while in state care.
At his trial in 1998, Reti argued he didn't intend to stab Edmonds and was acting in self-defence, provoked by Edmonds making sexual advances.
A police cordon around the scene. (Source: 1News)
The judgment from Reti's failed Court of Appeal bid in 1999 outlined what happened.
"In the morning, according to the appellant, he awoke to find the victim engaged in performing oral sex on him. The appellant made a number of requests for the victim to leave the house.
"The victim persisted with these sexual overtures and the appellant punched him. When this did not dissuade the victim from his approaches, the appellant stabbed him a number of times in the chest and throat. He then cut off the victim's ears and put them in his pocket."
In 2009, the then National government abolished the partial defence of provocation, limiting its use to the sentencing stage.
ADVERTISEMENT
But the Criminal Cases Review Commission found serious concerns about whether the partial defence of provocation was fully and fairly considered during the trial, and has referred the conviction back to the Court of Appeal.
This is the Commission's fifth referral to an appeals court since it was established in 2020.
"We don't decide guilt or innocence, that's the role of the courts. We have a duty to act, when we uncover information that could have made a real difference to the outcome. Our power of investigation and referral is an important safeguard in the justice system,' said Chief Commissioner Denis Clifford.
Reti's lawyer Kerry Cook said the CCRC's referral could be seen as a "brave step" because of the nature of the incident and the involvement of the now-repealed partial defence of provocation.
"However, this referral merely reflects the independence and integrity of the CCRC, which is an organisation devoted to justice. Despite the nature of any crime or any admitted acts, every New Zealander is entitled to justice — and that is all that Mr Reti seeks from this referral."
Crown Law was approached for comment but declined because the matter was now back before the courts.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
Crown to request retrial if court quashes Tamihere's murder convictions
The Crown says it will request a retrial if the Supreme Court quashes David Tamihere's double murder convictions. Tamihere's appeal in the High Court at Auckland has concluded, with a panel of judges reserving their decision. His lawyers were appealing an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that found a miscarriage of justice but upheld his convictions for murdering Swedish tourists Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. Crown lawyer Rebecca Thomson said their case at trial was that the only reasonable conclusion to draw from the facts was Tamihere's guilt, indicating they would seek a retrial if the appeal was upheld. "If the court were minded to allow this appeal, the Crown does seek a retrial," she said. ADVERTISEMENT "There clearly is a case here to answer, it's a decision for another day by different decision makers, whether or not the interests of justice would warrant a further prosecution, but it's clearly not a case where a directed acquittal would be appropriate." Given their chance to respond, defence lawyer Murray Gibson pointed out the Crown did not seek a retrial in their written submissions, instead advising the Court and counsel of it on Wednesday morning. He also said three principal witnesses had passed away in the time since the trial. "With great respect to the Crown submissions today, that must, in counsels submissions make a retrial almost untenable, if not untenable," Gibson said. Gibson agreed with Chief Justice Dame Helen Winkelmann that it would also mean prejudice to the defence 35 years later in having to meet a new case. The hearing concluded with the Chief Justice thanking Murray Gibson for his service in law, noting it was his final appearance in court. Gibson confirmed with RNZ he was retiring outside of court. ADVERTISEMENT "It's appropriate that on behalf of the judiciary, I thank you for your service to the profession and to the law," Helen Winkelmann said. Earlier in the day, the Court heard from the Crown that despite its irregularities, Tamihere's trial was fair. A Crown lawyer said the irregularities in the trial of convicted double murder David Tamihere did not mean it was unfair. The last day of Tamihere's Supreme Court appeal is underway in the High Court at Auckland on Wednesday morning. His lawyers are appealing an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that found a miscarriage of justice but upheld his convictions for murdering Swedish tourists Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. The couple disappeared while tramping in dense bush in the Coromandel Peninsula in 1989. The Crown resumed its submissions today, with lawyer Rebecca Thomson building up their argument Tamihere must have committed the murders. ADVERTISEMENT Five Supreme Court judges hearing arguments on whether the Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling was right to not quash his convictions. (Source: 1News) She took the five-judge panel through irregularities of Tamihere's original trial. "There were some," Thomson said. "But none of them reach the standard of it being an unfair trial." Thomson said it was a series of very lucky breaks that led to Tamihere's capture by police. Supreme Court judge Sir Stephen Kós questioned the way the Crown characterised Tamihere's actions, including if he stole the couple's car, something he had previously admitted. "It's idiocy on either account isn't it?" he said. ADVERTISEMENT "Either he's an idiotic murderer who drives around in the victims' car, when the victims, or at least one of them, hasn't been adequately concealed, so that's pretty stupid. "Or he's an idiotic car thief, as opposed to an idiotic murderer, who drives the car around the very area the people are likely to emerge from the bush and make a complaint." Tamihere served more than 20 years of a life sentence in prison before being released on parole in 2010. He denies even meeting the couple, and questions have lingered regarding his convictions. In 2020, the then Governor General granted Tamihere a rare Royal Prerogative of Mercy, on advice from former Justice Minister Andrew Little. The case was referred to the Court of Appeal to rule on whether there might have been a miscarriage of justice. It found, in July last year, there was — but upheld Tamihere's murder convictions because there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt he murdered the tourists. This is what the Supreme Court has been hearing submissions on for the past two days.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
New hearing for 1997 murder a 'brave step', lawyer says
A man who was convicted of fatally stabbing a fellow homeless man then mutilating his ears will have his case heard by the Court of Appeal — 27 years after he was jailed. Warning: This article includes details of graphic violence and sexual assault. Lon Reti was found guilty of murdering Leslie Edmonds at a squatters' house in central Christchurch in 1997. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and remains in prison. But a three-year investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission has found evidence related to Reti's personal history and mental health was not put before the court. The CCRC released its decision today, saying the information was relevant to Reti's partial defence of provocation. ADVERTISEMENT 1News understood the jury was not told Reti was abused while in state care. At his trial in 1998, Reti argued he didn't intend to stab Edmonds and was acting in self-defence, provoked by Edmonds making sexual advances. A police cordon around the scene. (Source: 1News) The judgment from Reti's failed Court of Appeal bid in 1999 outlined what happened. "In the morning, according to the appellant, he awoke to find the victim engaged in performing oral sex on him. The appellant made a number of requests for the victim to leave the house. "The victim persisted with these sexual overtures and the appellant punched him. When this did not dissuade the victim from his approaches, the appellant stabbed him a number of times in the chest and throat. He then cut off the victim's ears and put them in his pocket." In 2009, the then National government abolished the partial defence of provocation, limiting its use to the sentencing stage. ADVERTISEMENT But the Criminal Cases Review Commission found serious concerns about whether the partial defence of provocation was fully and fairly considered during the trial, and has referred the conviction back to the Court of Appeal. This is the Commission's fifth referral to an appeals court since it was established in 2020. "We don't decide guilt or innocence, that's the role of the courts. We have a duty to act, when we uncover information that could have made a real difference to the outcome. Our power of investigation and referral is an important safeguard in the justice system,' said Chief Commissioner Denis Clifford. Reti's lawyer Kerry Cook said the CCRC's referral could be seen as a "brave step" because of the nature of the incident and the involvement of the now-repealed partial defence of provocation. "However, this referral merely reflects the independence and integrity of the CCRC, which is an organisation devoted to justice. Despite the nature of any crime or any admitted acts, every New Zealander is entitled to justice — and that is all that Mr Reti seeks from this referral." Crown Law was approached for comment but declined because the matter was now back before the courts.
1News
a day ago
- 1News
Supreme Court judges grill Crown in David Tamihere appeal
Supreme Court judges have grilled the Crown case in double convicted murderer David Tamihere's appeal in the High Court at Auckland. Tamihere was convicted in December 1990 of murdering Swedish tourists Urban Höglin and Heidi Paakkonen. His lawyers are appealing an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that found a miscarriage of justice but upheld his convictions. Crown lawyers began there submissions today, with lawyer Fergus Sinclair giving the panel of judges background about Tamihere's movements through the bush around the Coromandel Peninsula, and the discovery of Höglin's body. The Crown case at the original trial was that Tamihere was living in the bush when he murdered the couple near Crosbies Clearing north of Thames. ADVERTISEMENT "We know Mr Tamihere's last two trips involved spending time in the Wentworth Valley, and on trip one, spending days on that Eastern side," Sinclair said. "Multiple witnesses established that." Watch the story on TVNZ+ Evidence had been presented at trial that two trampers identified Tamihere as a man they encountered at Crosbies Clearing with a young woman. Sinclair said Tamihere partly acknowledged and partly fictionalised trips he had taken around the area at trial, to conceal that he had been near to where Höglin's body was found. "Trip one, he said, North from Thames, has spent a long time around the Coromandel area, but he didn't," he said. "He went South, then East into the Wentworth, back the same way after more than a week." ADVERTISEMENT The second trip, Sinclair said, Tamihere claimed to have again gone North from Thames to the 309 Rd, then down the main road almost to Thames, but swerved up Tararu Creek Road to where the couple's car was to steal it, but this too was wrong, instead claiming Tamihere had gone South and back to the Wentworth Valley. "It's not possible to forget that your last two journeys were to an entirely different part of the region," Sinclair said. "So much time spent in a completely different place, in the opposite direction." Sinclair referenced the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal. "Mr Tamihere lied to conceal his presence in the Wentworth Valley, and did so because he knew police might find evidence there," he said. "The only evidence is the body, the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr Tamihere knew about the body." Sinclair faced scrutiny from the judges regarding whether claims Tamihere had lied had been put to him at trial. ADVERTISEMENT "It's a fundamental issue with the Crown's case," Chief Justice dame Helen Winkelmann said. "You're taking us and saying 'Mr Tamihere lied'. Statements are made contextually, lies, as juries are instructed, must be assessed contextually, if it's said to be a lie it must be put to the witness that it's a lie, it must be part of the case that it's a lie... "What are we to make of the fact that these things that you are now saying are lies, were to a greater or lesser extent not pursued at trial?" she asked. Five Supreme Court judges hearing arguments on whether the Court of Appeal in an earlier ruling was right to not quash his convictions. (Source: 1News) Sinclair said this was the fresh evidence exercise. "The issue is, does it disclose a miscarriage, and it is the Crown responding to a defence theory," he said. "The body is found, we now see more things, does it give rise to a miscarriage that is the issue." ADVERTISEMENT More scrutiny was put on the Crown's case by Justice Sir Joe Williams, who said their case came down to whether or not Tamihere had lied. "His lie, you say, is the thing that binds all of this together, Crown stands or falls on that lie," he said. "Without it you lose." Earlier today, Tamihere's lawyer James Carruthers asked the question if his trial would have turned out differently if a fundamental error had not occurred. He quoted a case which said questions needed to be asked on what course a trial would have taken, if errors had not been made. "It's interesting to ask here what the course of the trial might have been like had it not started off in completely the wrong direction," Carruthers said. "And as we can see from the Crown's amended case, it would have taken on an entirely different complexion." ADVERTISEMENT Part of the Crown evidence in the original 1990 trial was false, coming from a prison informant later convicted of perjury. Crown lawyer Rebecca Thomson discussed the importance of the evidence in the trial. "This was one of the very rare murder trials at which there was no body available, no narrative about how, and where, and why these victims had been killed," she said. "The Crown's case is entirely circumstantial leading towards the only possible explanation being Mr Tamihere's guilt. "That the Crown put some weight on the fact that Mr Tamihere had confessed himself to that crime, even if to witnesses who today we would perhaps not put so much stock in, is simply the fair trial process at work." That evidence was admissible and the Crown relied upon it, Thomson said. "The place that it had at the trial is what this court must focus on when looking at the unfairness question." ADVERTISEMENT Thomson said they accepted that it could have made a difference to the trial, but said whether it reached the level of being unfair was a higher threshold. Tamihere served more than 20 years of a life sentence in prison before being released on parole in 2010. He has always denied even meeting the pair and there have been lingering questions around the convictions. In 2020 the then Governor General, on advice from former Justice Minister Andrew Little, granted Tamihere a rare Royal Prerogative of Mercy. The case was referred back to the Court of Appeal to rule on whether there may have been a miscarriage of justice. That court, in July last year, found there was – but upheld Tamihere's murder convictions because there was evidence beyond reasonable doubt he murdered the tourists. This, in turn, was appealed to the Supreme Court which is hearing the case now. The hearing continues tomorrow.
