Nark: Solving a murder with no hard evidence, and a dead suspect

Source: Radio New Zealand

By Mike Wesley-Smith

Solving the murder of Darcy Te Hira inside Mt Eden Prison was never going to be easy.

The reason was as apparent to me decades later, doing the Nark podcast, as it was to the team of detectives who arrived at Mt Eden Prison on 6 January 1985. There was no forensic evidence pointing to the killer, meaning police had to extract the truth of what happened from a bunch of criminals. Many had dishonesty convictions, and most were muzzled by an inmate code of silence.

It is a context that must be remembered by anyone who assesses what then happened during the police investigation and murder prosecution of Ross Appelgren. Police and prosecutors bear a considerable legal and social burden to ensure murderers are held to account. Evidence sometimes comes easily, but even when it doesn’t, society still seeks quick justice – particularly when a killing occurs inside a supposedly secure prison.

In the end, the conviction of Ross Appelgren relied entirely on the eye-witness testimony of a fellow inmate – a “nark” to use prison vernacular. His name is suppressed, so in the podcast, he’s called “Ernie”.

Even in 1985, there were rules that detectives and prosecutors had to follow, because building and maintaining a conviction is like building and maintaining a house; it must have a solid foundation and an immovable watertight frame that can stand the tests of time and resist the winds of scrutiny. Because, as in Appelgren’s case, even when the convicted die, their quest for justice doesn’t always die with them.

And don’t be fooled into thinking the case’s age somehow diminishes its relevance – its lessons are just as valuable today as they were then.

My Nark podcast, which has been released over the past six weeks and is now fully available online, has revealed many instances of police and prosecutors failing to follow their own rules. The full list would take me beyond this article’s word limit, but here are just some of the most serious examples Appelgren’s lawyers have discovered in police and court documents:

• Police failed to record all their interactions with Ernie – including the meeting where they told him he was either a witness or a suspect (something they never told the juries or Appelgren’s lawyers). This was significant, as prosecutors maintained Ernie had no reason to implicate Appelgren other than his desire to see justice done.
• Prior to taking a formal statement from Ernie, police discussed compensation with him in exchange for his evidence. At the time Ernie was a penniless inmate with over 200 previous convictions for fraud, who’d given conflicting accounts before formally documenting what he had to say.
• Police assured him of early prison release before he testified.
• At the first trial, the prosecution failed to disclose Ernie’s initial police statements, including his anonymous note that “I never saw it done”. This resulted in Appelgren’s first conviction being quashed.
• At the 1992 retrial, the prosecution failed to disclose inmate “Danny’s” confession that he had ordered the hit on Te Hira and that Appelgren was not involved. This led the Governor-General to refer Appelgren’s case back to the Court of Appeal in 1994, because it might have resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

That appeal was never heard before Appelgren died.

Now his widow, Julie, hopes to resurrect it, not just because she believes her husband is innocent, but also because of the police and prosecution failures outlined.

In setting this all out, I am not asserting that the Crown case was without merit. Two juries and two appeal courts found Ernie convincing enough to convict Appelgren.

When I tracked him down and spoke to him for hours, he remained steadfast in his account. It also cannot be presumed that a Court, apprised of all the new evidence that has emerged since the 1992 retrial, would rule Appelgren’s conviction is unsafe. So listen to the podcast and decide for yourself.

Going into my investigation, I knew that I would have a lot of contact with Julie Appelgren and learn a lot about her questions regarding the prosecution case.

What I didn’t know was that I would also come to know Te Hira’s widow, Suzanne Young, just as well. She believes Appelgren is guilty, but I discovered she nonetheless has many long-standing doubts about what happened to her husband. There was so much she only found out for the first time from me.

Suzanne’s perspective, unheard before, was one of the most significant revelations for me in this project. Through her, I finally learned who Te Hira really was. A much-loved husband who is still sorely missed.

Both Julie and Suzanne hoped for different outcomes in this case, but both expected that two trials would deliver the truth, however difficult or painful to hear.

After my years-long experience with this case, I don’t think they or the rest of us yet have that truth. For that reason, I believe Suzanne deserves the answers to her questions and that Appelgren’s appeal deserves its day in Court.

None of this will be easy, but then nothing about this case ever was.

Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.

– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand