David Tamihere. Photo: RNZ
Double murderer David Tamihere has signalled he is likely to keep fighting his convictions for killing two Swedish backpackers 35 years ago.
A Court of Appeal decision released on Thursday dismissed Tamihere's claim that he was wrongly convicted of murdering Heidi Paakkonen and Sven Urban Höglin, who disappeared in 1989, while tramping in dense bush on the Coromandel Peninsula.
Tamihere told RNZ he was disappointed "but not surprised" by the outcome.
"From what I've read so far, the Appeal Court seems to think their primary job is to protect the Crown case."
The three judges found controversial "jailhouse snitch" evidence at Tamihere's original 1990 trial - and evidence about a watch later found to be wrong - did constitute "a miscarriage of justice".
However, they concluded other evidence was enough to prove his guilt "beyond reasonable doubt".
That evidence included eyewitness reports from trampers (who identified Tamihere as the man they met at Crosbies Clearing with a young, blonde woman on 8 April 1989), the Swedes' belongings were found at his house, his lies about his movements and finding and breaking into their car, and his actions after their disappearance.
"We accept that it remains impossible to know the couple's precise movements after they were seen in Thames on 7 April and why they were killed," the judges wrote.
"But we do not accept that it is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Tamihere killed them."
Tamihere's lawyer Murray Gibson, who has represented him for the last three decades, remains convinced of his innocence.
"The latest explanation advanced by the Crown in this case is the third scenario that they've advanced as to what happened."
The false testimony of Tamihere's fellow inmate, Roberto Conchie Harris, was the lynchpin for the original Crown case because it corroborated two trampers' identification of Tamihere as the man seen with Paakkonen, he said.
"Conchie Harris was convicted in 2017 on eight counts of perjury. The trial judge said his evidence in the Tamihere trial was egregious conduct, he was sentenced to 8 1/2 years.
"But there is no doubt that he was a central witness at the trial."
Harris' claim - that Tamihere killed Höglin with a piece of wood and dumped the bodies at sea - was exposed as false in 1991, when Höglin's skeletal remains were found near Whangamatā, more than 70km from where the Crown said the murders occurred.
He was still wearing the watch police claimed Tamihere had stolen and given to his son, and his clothing and vertebrae showed signs of being stabbed.
Gibson said the trampers maintained Tamihere was not the man they had seen, and did not identify him from photo montages.
"About four months later, after being in the company of the police throughout the period, the trampers finally said, 'Oh, we think the person that was up there was David Tamihere'."
The Court of Appeal judges said the trampers' identification could be trusted because it was backed up by their descriptions of camping equipment later found at Tamihere's house.
However, Gibson said he would be recommending to his client that he pursue an appeal.
"I think it is appropriate given the good grounds that are available to take it to a higher court, that that's where it should be heard."
The country's top cop for investigations, Assistant Commissioner Paul Basham said the Court of Appeal judgment was "hugely validating" for all staff who worked on Operation Stockholm over the years.
Police remained determined to get answers for the families, and find Heidi Paakonen's body - and Tamihere was "the only person" who could help closure to her family, he said.
"Our message to him now remains the same as it has been for more than two decades:
"You know where Heidi's body rests and her family has suffered enough.
"Tell us where to find Heidi, and help give her family the closure they deserve."
However, Tamihere said police were lying to the victims' families.
"They're full of it as well. What else could they say? Because they would have been shitting themselves that there would have been a re-trial or something like that."
In order to give leave for an appeal, the Supreme Court must be satisfied that a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred.
