The Supreme Court has quashed David Tamihere's convictions for killing Swedish backpackers Heidi Paakkonen and Urban Hoglin in 1989.
The Court said that does not necessarily mean he is innocent and has ordered a retrial, although it has left it up to the Crown to decide whether to take this step.
For the moment the Supreme Court judgment represents a big victory for Tamihere, who has always insisted he did not commit the crimes. He spent 20 years in jail, and twice went to the Court of Appeal and lost.
His campaign has kept alive interest in a case which gripped the country in 1989. The disappearance of the Swedish couple received huge media coverage here and in Sweden, and led to New Zealand's largest ever land search.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court - the highest court in the New Zealand - laid out the background to its decision. It pointed out that at Tamihere's 1990 trial the Crown case was largely circumstantial, "including the inference that Mr Hoglin and Ms Paakkonen were dead, as at that time neither body had been found".
That circumstantial evidence included the accounts of two trampers who said they saw Tamihere at a campsite clearing in the Coromandel bush, with a blonde haired woman who resembled Paakkonen.
It also included the evidence of Roberto Conchie Harris, who gave details of conversations with Tamihere while both were on remand in prison. Harris said Tamihere had admitted to killing the Swedish couple. In 2017, Harris was convicted of perjury over his evidence.
The key to the Supreme Court's judgment is its view that when new evidence emerged in later years, it led to a change in the Crown's view of how the crimes were committed, which should have been placed before a jury to consider. Instead, it was dealt with by the Court of Appeal.
That new evidence included the discovery of Hoglin's body in 1991, 70km from the campsite where the trampers say they saw Tamihere. The Court of Appeal said that did not affect Tamihere's guilt.
Witness Harris' perjury became part of another case to the Court of Appeal. In 2024 that court ruled the perjury did represent a miscarriage of justice. But it upheld the murder convictions because it was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tamihere was guilty.
Tamihere then took his case to the Supreme Court. And, in its ruling today, it says the Court of Appeal made a mistake in 2024 in upholding the convictions.
The Supreme Court gave two reasons. It said admitting the perjured evidence of Harris at the initial trial means "there was a fundamental error at trial which made the trial unfair".
And the Court said the discovery of Hoglin's body forced the Crown to come up with a "radically different" theory of the crimes. This meant "focusing on events connected to the offending occurring at multiple locations across a different, significantly larger geographical area, and over many hours".
The Supreme Court added: "The new Crown theory means other evidence needs to be seen in a new light and raises questions of credibility and reliability about that evidence.
"There are simply too many questions on the Crown's new theory of the case, which have not been tested, for an appellate court to reach a conclusion about guilt."
The Supreme Court said a jury needs to consider the case, and that's why it has directed a retrial.
In a statement to 1News, the Crown Law Office said "that decision will take into account many factors and will be made in due course".
Outside the Supreme Court hearing in Auckland last year, Tamihere told 1News he hoped for a retrial. Now that a retrial is a possibility, he is not making further comment.
Police say they have told the families of Paakkonen and Hoglin about the Supreme Court decision, and say those families have requested privacy.
Assistant Commissioner Investigations Corrie Parnell told 1News their focus remained getting answers for the families.
"We'll continue in that vein. It's always been our goal to actually seek justice, as well as some positive answers. The fact that Heidi's body still has never been recovered, the location has still remained unknown."
He said if anyone had information about the case, they should bring it forward so it could be considered.
SHARE ME