(1).jpg)
A former judge, Rodney Hansen, who was involved in the compensation case of Teina Pora, has stated that eyewitness identification evidence can often be unreliable. This comes as the Criminal Cases Review Commission Te Kāhui begins its first investigation into how eyewitness evidence is used in identifying defendants.
Hansen, a former high court judge, was part of the compensation claims for two high-profile wrongful conviction cases – Teina Pora and Alan Hall. He says that eyewitness accounts were often the most convincing evidence in court. However, he also acknowledges that this type of evidence can be flawed.
Hansen retired from the judiciary 10 years ago after serving for 14 years. He states that the rules and practices around eyewitness evidence have not changed much since his time on the bench. He supports any inquiry into the reliability of eyewitness evidence.
In Alan Hall’s case, his conviction for murder was overturned after 37 years because the police had hidden and altered information from witnesses. Hall’s brother, Geoff, welcomes the inquiry, hoping it will prevent future wrongful convictions.
The inquiry will also look into other factors that can make witness identification evidence unreliable, including cross-racial identification. Te Kāhui chief executive Parekawhia Mclean says that some Māori people have been wrongly identified as perpetrators by Pākehā.
The police have stated they are aware of the inquiry and will cooperate when required. They have declined to comment further while the inquiry is ongoing.
