Roderick Mulgan: Criminal defence lawyer on the Philip Polkinghorne verdict

A criminal defence lawyer says the Polkinghorne verdict isn't a surprise.  

Eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne was found not guilty of the murder or manslaughter of his wife Pauline Hanna at their Remuera home in April 2021.  

The verdict —given at the High Court in Auckland yesterday— followed 10 hours of deliberations over two days.  

Criminal defence lawyer Roderick Mulgan told Ryan Bridge if there's doubt, there has to be an acquittal.  

He says even though many people were suspicious, it's not enough. There's a high bar and it's difficult to convict people on circumstantial evidence. 

LISTEN ABOVE 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Not guilty. Pulkinghorn walked free from court yesterday quittive murdering
his wife Pauline Hannah. Finally a verdict. Roderick Mullgan is
a criminal defense lawyer. He's with US Live this morning. Roderick,
good morning, Good morning. Were you surprised at that verdict? No?
Why not?

Speaker 2 (00:18):
I think many people saw that coming. But the thing
about criminal justice, as we all know, is doubt. So
if there's doubt, you've got to have an acquittal. And
even though many people were suspicious, did he really do it?
It's just not enough. It is a high bar. It
is difficult to convict people on circumstantial evidence. And as

(00:41):
judges are saying the juries all the time, even if
you think it's likely somebody did it, that's not enough.
You've got to be sure, and you just can't be
sure of that evidence.

Speaker 1 (00:52):
Most of the jury clearly didn't think it was suicide,
because they said as much in their question to the judge.
What happens now with the cogner? What if the coroner
rules that it's not suicide.

Speaker 2 (01:04):
The coroner has a different standard of evidence. The coroner's
inquiry is balance of probabilities. What's more, likely, so it's
not a criminal inquiry. So the coroner is free to
come to a different conclusion if they think the evidence

(01:29):
merits it. So you can have the jury saying, well,
there's some doubt about whether it was further, and you
have the coroner saying it's likely to be murdered, and
those two things can sit side by side because they're
answering the question to two different levels.

Speaker 1 (01:47):
What would require, what would be required for a retrial?
More evidence, new evidence?

Speaker 2 (01:55):
What a trial is big and as complex and as
thorough as this, a new trial could only happen if
there was very, very substantial new evidence, and it just
doesn't exist because everything here is circumstantial. Interesting, There was

(02:16):
never an eyewitness, there was never a photograph, there was
never a fingerprint. So it's not going to.

Speaker 1 (02:21):
Happen to your mind, Polkinghorn is a free man for good. Yes,
thanks so much for your time, Roderic Mulgan.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
For more from News Talks, there'd be listen live on
air or online and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcast on iHeartRadio