An Ōpōtiki man who spent three years in prison for beating his elderly neighbour to death has now had his manslaughter conviction quashed in a so-called ‘false confession’ miscarriage of justice - and is now seeking $600,000 in compensation. Jared Savage reports
Brian Hilton was found lying on the floor in the lounge of his home in Ōpōtiki, barely conscious.
It was Friday, July 8, 2016. Hilton, 77, was battered and badly bruised, with blood everywhere. The friend who discovered the pensioner called 111, and Hilton was airlifted to Tauranga Hospital where he was admitted into the intensive care unit.
He died five days later. The official cause of death was an acute chest infection, which had been caused by the severe head injuries he suffered.
This wasn’t an accidental fall by a frail old man, weighing just 49kg and sick with emphysema. The post-mortem examination revealed that Hilton had been violently beaten, most likely with heavy punches or perhaps stomping, which fractured his face in several places. His injuries were so bad, the level of force needed to inflict them was compared to a car crash.
This was now a homicide investigation.
Detectives in the Bay of Plenty CIB initially focused on a suspect who had previously acted aggressively towards Hilton, stolen his house keys, and turned up at strange hours of the day. But the original suspect, who denied assaulting Hilton, was ruled out because of an alibi given by his partner.
The focus of police then switched to a new suspect: Harry Matchitt.
A partial DNA profile swabbed from a bottle of Steinlager beer found in Hilton’s lounge was matched to the 49-year-old, who lived nearby.
It’s easy to see why the police were interested in Matchitt. He first went to prison as a teenager, joined the Mongrel Mob gang soon after, and went on to amass 177 convictions for drink-driving, dishonesty offences and violence.
There was also grainy CCTV footage that showed someone, whom the police believed was of similar stature to Matchitt, walking up the driveway of Hilton’s home about 8.30pm the night before the pensioner was found critically hurt.
Matchitt agreed to be interviewed at the Ōpōtiki police station on September 1, 2016.
He explained that he would visit Hilton about once a month. He couldn’t remember the last time he went but it would have been “a while back”.
When confronted by the DNA evidence, Matchitt acknowledged he would have “a few beers” with Hilton, but could not remember the last occasion.
Then confronted with the CCTV footage, Matchitt conceded it “probably” was him but later said he was unsure. Asked if he wanted to say anything about how Hilton got his injuries, Matchitt said “no”.
No charges were laid against Matchitt, or anyone else.
More than two years later, the police arrested Harry Matchitt and charged him with the murder of Brian Hilton.
The breakthrough in the homicide investigation came in December 2018 after Matchitt agreed to speak with detectives again, twice in a matter of days.
During the second interview on December 6, 2018, Matchitt, who struck the police constables as close to tears, said he probably visited Hilton once a week, and would drink with him for a couple of hours.
Asked to explain in his own words what he remembered about the evening before Hilton was discovered beaten and close to death two years earlier, Matchitt conceded he had been at the address that night but left at 6pm.
One of the officers then asked Matchitt if he returned to Hilton’s home around 8.30pm.
A: I have got nothing to say. Why would I want to kill an old man?
Q: We just want to know if you went to Brian’s at around 8.30pm?
A: It probably was me, if it was me it was me. Why would I want to kill an old man?
At the time, rumours that Matchitt was responsible for Hilton’s death were spreading through the Ōpōtiki community and circling back to him.
Pressed further about whether he thought something may have happened that he could not remember, Matchitt replied: “Why would I? F***en hell. Not that I could remember.
“My stuff was on his table and we were drinking. I just hope that I did not go back and do anything. Why should I have, he was a good person.”
Q: So, who would be the person in the video going into Brian’s if it was not you?
A: It could have been me.
Q: What I am saying, if it could have been you, were you that intoxicated that you could not remember?
A: I am not too sure.
Immediately after the second interview finished, Matchitt told the constable: “If I did do it, I can’t remember doing it”.
Six days later, Matchitt was invited back to the Ōpōtiki police station for a third and final interview.
He did not want the interview to be recorded on DVD but agreed for the questions and answers to be written down in a formal statement.
This time, a senior constable who had known Matchitt for decades was present. Just before the interview started, the veteran officer had an important exchange with the prime suspect.
“Look, Harry, I’ve known you for 28 years. You need to be honest and get this off your chest,” the senior constable told Matchitt, according to the other police officer.
“This is playing on your mind Harry. I think you need to talk about what’s playing on your mind and speak to me.”
On hearing this, Matchitt looked emotionally distraught, with tears in his eyes and put his head in his hands. The senior constable kept talking to him.
Q: Look, I don’t know why you have done this, Harry.
A: I don’t know why either.
Then Matchitt made some comments which the police would seize on as an admission of guilt.
“I probably did assault him. I can’t remember clearly what happened…I probably went in there and pushed him over or kicked him,” Matchitt said.
The informal conversation lasted about 30 minutes, after which Matchitt gave an official witness statement to the police.
Asked what happened with Hilton that evening, Matchitt said: “It’s already been said, but I was pissed and probably pushed him over and kicked him.”
The altercation “could have been over anything” and Matchitt just wanted to face a charge and “get it off my chest”.
At the end of the interview, Matchitt was arrested and charged with murder. Again, he was asked if he would like to share his side of the story.
A: I’ve already told you I was drinking at his place all day and went home.
Q: Would you like to say anything else Harry?
A: No.
Five years after Brian Hilton was left for dead in his own home, Harry Clements Matchitt went on trial for murder in the High Court at Tauranga in July 2021.
The Crown case was that Matchitt had gone to Hilton’s home when he was intoxicated, the two argued, and Matchitt kicked and punched Hilton before leaving.
The prosecution relied on the DNA match on the beer bottle found in the lounge, and the CCTV footage showing a man walking towards and entering Hilton’s address at 8.40pm, then leaving at 9.43pm.
The Crown claimed the unidentified man was Matchitt and that he had walked to Hilton’s address after leaving the home of his former partner in a drunk and angry state. That assertion was based on the witness statement of Matchitt’s son-in-law, who told police Matchitt had been kicked out of the house after arguing with his former partner some time between 8pm and 9pm that night.
At trial, Matchitt’s former son-in-law resiled from his initial statement, saying he couldn’t remember the events of that night in July 2016. The defence also pointed out part of his statement was wrong: he’d based his earlier recollections on what time he arrived home from work, but records showed he hadn’t been working that day. Matchitt’s former partner also denied the domestic incident took place that night.
But the Crown still had the three statements Matchitt had given to police. His admission in the final interview that “It’s already been said, but I was pissed and probably pushed him over and kicked him” were described by prosecutors as the final piece of the puzzle to solve who was responsible for Hilton’s death.
The defence case was that CCTV footage did not identify anyone (or cover other doors to the house) and the DNA on the beer bottle only proved something that Matchitt had admitted: that he had been drinking at Hilton’s house on the day in question.
They pointed the finger at the original suspect for the murder, as he had a weak alibi and had stolen a laptop from Hilton’s home around the time of death.
The defence urged the jury to ignore Matchitt’s statements to police because what he said was so unreliable.
The statements indicated he could not recall what happened, and knowing that Matchitt was unreliable, the police failed to ask questions to verify what he said.
As the defence pointed out, Matchitt struggled to answer his own lawyer’s questions at trial, let alone anything else.
The jury’s verdict was a mixed result: acquitted of murder but found guilty of manslaughter.
“You were extremely fortunate to not be convicted of murder,” Justice Kit Toogood told Matchitt at the sentencing hearing, as the attack on a vulnerable, sick old man was so brutal.
In the judge’s opinion, the jury must have decided that Matchitt was so intoxicated that he could not appreciate, to the extent the law requires for a murder conviction, the consequences of what you were doing.
“Nevertheless, a drunken intent to beat someone severely about the head is a culpable, or blame-worthy intent, and the fact that you were drunk provides no defence or excuse.”
Matchitt was sentenced to seven years and nine months in prison, with the High Court judge ordering he must serve at least 50% before being eligible for parole.
Nearly two years later, barrister Steven Lack stood in front of the Court of Appeal judges in Wellington and argued there was a real risk that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Lack was not Matchitt’s lawyer at the original trial. But if he had been, Lack would have argued that the incriminating statements Matchitt made to the police should never have been placed before the jury.
This was because the interviews were given in circumstances which made them unreliable as evidence, Lack reasoned in the Court of Appeal, and he relied on the opinion of clinical psychologist Amanda McFadden to explain why.
To gather information for her report, McFadden interviewed Matchitt, his partner and adult daughter, read his medical records, and conducted neuropsychological tests of his cognitive function and degree of “suggestibility”, as well as the police statements themselves.
Matchitt scored at the “extreme end” in one of the tests for suggestibility as he often changed his answers if told he was wrong, McFadden said. This tendency made him “highly likely” to be vulnerable to the repetition of leading questions when pressed in a formal interview.
His behaviour in the police interviews could be explained by memory distrust syndrome, McFadden explained. The syndrome is a recognised psychological concept where an interviewee goes along with a suggestion because they cannot remember, or do not trust their own memory.
This is more common in individuals with histories of substance abuse, violence, blackouts and head injuries - as Matchitt has.
In a judgment released in November 2023, the Court of Appeal said there was very little evidence about who was present in Hilton’s house on the evening he was assaulted, so the witness statements of Matchitt were crucial to the Crown case.
But the trio of judges were not convinced the incriminating interviews would have been admissible as evidence, if the issue had been raised before his trial.
“Mr Matchitt never appears to do more than suggest what might have happened,” the Court of Appeal wrote.
“We consider it possible a Judge would have reservations as to whether Mr Matchitt actually recalled what had occurred on the relevant evening, and whether he had returned to Mr Hilton’s and if so, what transpired and why.”
This meant there was a real risk that the outcome of the original trial had been affected, so the Court of Appeal ruled that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.
Matchitt’s conviction for manslaughter was quashed and the judges ordered a new trial would be held.
In February, the High Court held a hearing on whether Matchitt’s interviews could be used in the retrial. Lack engaged the services of Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, a London-based former detective who pioneered research in memory trust syndrome and who has testified in criminal trials around the world.
Gudjonsson’s opinion was that Matchitt suffered from genuine memory distrust syndrome which was compounded by the “highly guilt-presumptive and leading fashion” in which the police questioned him, particularly in the third and final interview.
The emotional nature of the interview increased Matchitt’s vulnerability to memory distrust, Gudjonsson said, which meant there was a “high risk of unreliability” in his statements to police.
In response, two expert witnesses for the Crown disagreed with the reports of McFadden and Gudjonsson. But a third expert engaged by the prosecution, forensic psychologist Ghazi Metoui, actually agreed with some of the concerns raised about how Matchitt was questioned in his final interview.
In particular, he highlighted the comments in which the long-serving officer said “I don’t know why you did this Harry”, “I think you need to talk about what’s playing on your mind and speak to me”, and “I’ve known you for 28 years Harry - you need to talk to me.”
These statements were suggestive, subtly coercive, and used emotional and unreasonable pressure, Metoui said.
The forensic psychologist noted it was only after this third and final conversation that Matchitt made the most incriminating statements, and even then he used the word “probably” twice.
“That type of questioning is known in the literature to risk individuals making unreliable admissions and particularly if manifesting memory distrust.”
On receiving Metoui’s report in late January, the Crown accepted that Matchitt’s final statement to the police in December 2018 would not be admissible as evidence at the retrial.
Without the tentative admission that he “probably” assaulted Brian Hilton, the Crown also accepted there was now insufficient evidence against Matchitt to justify a second trial.
With that concession, Justice Kiri Tahana dismissed the manslaughter charge. Matchitt was freed from prison immediately.
Matchitt spent 1188 days in prison, either on remand waiting for trial or serving his sentence for manslaughter, and another 103 days on restrictive bail conditions.
Steven Lack has now written to the Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, seeking compensation for the time his client wrongfully spent in custody.
Under the Justice Ministry guidelines, Matchitt would be entitled to more than $600,000 if he was successful in proving his innocence on the balance of probabilities.
A spokesperson for Goldsmith would not comment on the compensation application.
A Justice Ministry spokesperson said any application is first assessed against the criteria for compensation before advice is given to Goldsmith.
The key issues at this stage are whether the applicant could establish their innocence, and whether compensation was in the “interests of justice”.
If not, Goldsmith can decline the application. If the initial criteria is met, then the application is usually sent to an independent senior lawyer, such as a King’s Counsel, to provide further advice.
If, on receipt of that advice, Goldsmith considers that compensation should be paid, the matter is referred to the Cabinet for final approval.
Lack said wrongful convictions do happen but in his client’s case, this was not a “matter of simple human error”.
“His conviction was the direct result of the improper way that he was interrogated by Police, which led to his false ‘confessions.’ His vulnerability to this kind of questioning should have been obvious, and his statements were clearly unreliable.
“Because of these failures, Mr Matchitt was charged, convicted, and imprisoned for a homicide he did not commit. No compensation can ever restore the years he lost with his family, but it can at least recognise the grave injustice he suffered at the hands of the Police.”
In a written statement, the New Zealand Police defended the process in which Matchitt was interviewed.
“The Police view is that the manner in which Mr Matchitt was dealt with and the process conducted in interviewing him were entirely proper; however, accept the expert’s findings in relation to the specific comments highlighted,” said Detective Inspector Lew Warner, the Bay of Plenty district manager of criminal investigations.
“Police do not accept criticism on the basis that the officer was ‘well-known’ to Mr Matchitt, as these relationships are an expected part of rural and community policing.”
Asked if the officers involved have been given further training in interviewing suspects, Warner said the officer who spoke with Matchitt in the controversial third interview had left the police before the findings of the experts were released.
When asked why the police abandoned their interest in the original suspect, Warner said he was “satisfactorily ruled out” but confirmed he was later convicted of a burglary at Hilton’s home in the days after his death.
The death of Hilton now remains officially unsolved, although Warner said the case would be reopened if new information came to light.
The case is also before the Coroner, although a spokesperson could not confirm whether an inquest would be held.
Hilton’s family declined to comment.
When Matchitt was released from prison earlier this year, his immediate response was not relief or joy. He was angry.
“My reaction was to say ‘get f***ed’, excuse my language,” Matchitt, now 57, told the Herald.
“Because I had already been to hell and back…dragged me through this nightmare that I had nothing to do with, or have [any] knowledge of.”
While he is now back home in Ōpōtiki, Matchitt said he is struggling to adjust to life outside prison and most people in the town are unaware of the final outcome of the court proceedings.
“The community hasn’t heard the full story yet.”
He freely admits that he has been “in-and-out of prison” for most of his life; a downward spiral that started when his mother died.
At the age of 5, Matchitt was sent to live with relatives in Northland who physically abused him daily and forced him to work on a dairy farm.
He ran away at the age of 12 and was sent to the Hamilton Boys Home where he suffered further abuse until he was old enough to leave, which is when he joined the Mongrel Mob.
“I went straight to prison…I was only as good as what I was taught.”
While he is candid about his criminal history, Matchitt is adamant that he had nothing to do with the death of Hilton.
“He was a good mate of mine. Next minute, they are pointing the finger at me. Why would I hurt an old man?”
Jared Savage covers crime and justice issues, with a particular interest in organised crime. He joined the Herald in 2006 and has won a dozen journalism awards in that time, including twice being named Reporter of the Year. He is also the author of Gangland, Gangster’s Paradise and Underworld.