In a decision released on Tuesday, the Supreme Court directed a retrial but said it was up to the Crown to decide whether one should be held.

The court found there was a fundamental error in Tamihere's 1990 trial which made it unfair - and the Crown case had changed so "radically" since then that it had not actually been tested by a jury.

In 2017, a key witness in crown case, prison informant Robert Conchie Harris was found guilty of perjury .

Tamihere took the case to the Court of Appeal which in 2024 found there had been a miscarriage of justice because of Harris's evidence but it did not quash its conviction because the court remained convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Tamihere was guilty.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court found the Court of Appeal did not have the right to make a call on Tamihere's guilt after it had found the miscarriage of justice - that could only be made by a jury.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

No compensation I would say. He's not declared innocent, the previous court deemed he likely did it.

I think the crown now needs to decide if they think they can win a case in front of a jury. If yes, they will probably charge him then go through the process similar to if it was a new arrest - decide if he is a risk to the public, and if so ask a judge not to grant bail. Then if approved he stays in custody until the trial has an outcome.

Edit: as per other comment he is apparently already on parole, so that would likely continue. It may influence the crown's decision whether to charge him again, as since he's out of prison it will probably be about his risk to the public now. If he's a risk, they would need to get him retried to maintain the (I'm assuming) life-long parole.