Harry Matchitt’s Manslaughter Conviction Quashed After Evidence of False Confession

In a landmark ruling, the Court of Appeal has overturned Harry Matchitt’s conviction for the manslaughter of Brian Hilton in Ōpōtiki, citing the unreliability of his statements due to suggestive and emotionally charged police interrogation. The case has sparked significant debate about the integrity of the justice system and the risks of false confessions in criminal trials.

Brian Hilton, a 77-year-old man, was found battered and unconscious in his Ōpōtiki home on July 8, 2016. He died five days later from severe head injuries, with the official cause of death attributed to an acute chest infection resulting from the trauma. The post-mortem revealed injuries consistent with a violent assault, possibly involving heavy punches or stomping, equivalent in force to a car crash.

The initial investigation focused on a suspect with a history of aggression toward Hilton and a previous theft of his keys, but this person was ruled out due to a solid alibi. The police then turned their attention to Harry Matchitt, a 49-year-old man with a long history of convictions for drink-driving, dishonesty, and violence. A partial DNA match from a Steinlager beer bottle found in Hilton’s lounge linked to Matchitt, and grainy CCTV footage showed a man of similar stature entering Hilton’s home around 30 minutes past 8 pm the night before the incident.

Matchitt was first interviewed on September 1, 2016, and acknowledged he had been drinking with Hilton but could not recall the last time. When confronted with the CCTV footage, he said it 'probably' was him but remained uncertain. He declined to comment on how Hilton was injured, and no charges were laid at that time.

Over two years later, in December 2018, Matchitt was interviewed again. During this second interview, he appeared emotionally distressed and admitted he likely visited Hilton once a week and drank with him. When asked if he returned to Hilton’s home around 8.30 pm, he said 'it probably was me' and added, 'Why would I want to kill an old man?' He later stated in a final interview that he was 'pissed' and 'probably pushed him over or kicked him,' though he claimed he could not remember clearly.

The prosecution relied on Matchitt’s statements, the DNA match, and the CCTV footage to argue he assaulted Hilton while intoxicated. The defence, however, challenged the reliability of Matchitt’s statements, pointing to inconsistencies in his alibi and the lack of clarity in the CCTV footage. Matchitt’s former son-in-law and partner also denied key claims about a domestic argument that night.

At trial in July 2021, the jury acquitted Matchitt of murder but found him guilty of manslaughter. Justice Kit Toogood noted that while Matchitt was intoxicated and may not have appreciated the consequences, a drunken intent to severely assault a vulnerable person was culpable. He was sentenced to seven years and nine months, with at least 50% of the sentence to be served before parole eligibility.

In November 2023, the Court of Appeal ruled that there was a real risk of a miscarriage of justice due to the unreliable nature of Matchitt’s statements. The judges found that the police interrogation, particularly in the final interview, used emotionally suggestive and leading questions—such as 'I don’t know why you did this Harry' and 'you need to talk to me'—which increased Matchitt’s vulnerability to memory distrust syndrome. A clinical psychologist, Amanda McFadden, found Matchitt scored at the 'extreme end' in a test for suggestibility and exhibited memory distrust syndrome, common in individuals with histories of substance abuse, violence, and head injuries.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Crown’s case relied heavily on statements that were unreliable and potentially coerced. As a result, the conviction for manslaughter was quashed, and a new trial was ordered.

In February 2025, during a High Court hearing, Professor Gisli Gudjonsson, a leading expert on memory trust syndrome, confirmed that Matchitt’s vulnerability to leading questions and emotional pressure made his statements highly unreliable. A Crown expert, Ghazi Metoui, also agreed that the specific statements during the final interview were suggestive and posed a risk of unreliable admissions. As a result, the Crown conceded that Matchitt’s final statement would not be admissible as evidence. Without this admission, the prosecution admitted there was insufficient evidence to justify a second trial.

Justice Kiri Tahana dismissed the manslaughter charge, and Matchitt was released from prison immediately. He had served 1188 days in prison, including time on remand and restrictive bail.

Barrister Steven Lack has submitted a compensation claim to the Justice Minister, Paul Goldsmith, seeking over $600,000 under Justice Ministry guidelines for wrongful imprisonment. The claim is based on the assertion that Matchitt did not commit the crime and was the victim of a miscarriage of justice due to improper police interrogation. Lack described the conviction as not a simple error but the result of flawed police conduct that led to false confessions.

The New Zealand Police defended the process, stating that the manner of interrogation was 'entirely proper' and that the officer’s long-standing relationship with Matchitt was a normal part of rural policing. The officer involved had since left the force. The original suspect, who was later convicted of a burglary at Hilton’s home, remains a point of contention. The death of Brian Hilton remains officially unsolved, though the case is under review by the Coroner, with no confirmation of an inquest.

Upon release, Matchitt expressed anger, saying he felt 'get f***ed' at being falsely accused. He acknowledged a long history of criminal behavior stemming from childhood abuse and a life of incarceration. He firmly denies any involvement in Hilton’s death, stating that Hilton was a good friend and that he would never harm an old man. The case has highlighted serious concerns about interrogation practices, memory distrust in vulnerable individuals, and the potential for wrongful convictions in homicide cases.