Mr Hall’s convictions for murdering Arthur Easton and intentionally wounding his son Brendon Easton in a home invasion in 1985 were quashed by the Supreme Court a year ago.
The battle for justice for Mr Hall has been long.
As well as spending almost two decades behind bars, Mr Hall has faced almost the same length of time again to get to this point.
Without the unwavering support of his family, including his staunchest advocate, his late mother Shirley, it would not have been possible. Media attention to the case also played a vital role, particularly the work of Mike Wesley-Smith.
Mr Hall’s first appeal against his convictions were lost in 1987 and three applications for the royal prerogative of mercy were later rejected.
In the Supreme Court ruling last year Chief Justice Winkelman said there was either extreme incompetence or a deliberate and wrongful strategy to achieve the murder conviction.
The court found witnesses’ descriptions of the killer were not disclosed and the police unfairly obtained statements from Mr Hall.
Crown Law, which oversees criminal prosecutions, filed submissions saying it was unassailable and incontrovertible key evidence was materially altered and relevant evidence was concealed.
It accepted the murder conviction should be quashed and said it would not seek a retrial.
After Mr Hall lodged his application for compensation, retired High Court Judge Rodney Hansen was appointed to provide independent advice on the case.
He found Mr Hall had established his innocence, on the balance of probabilities.
He found Mr Hall did not bear any resemblance to the man described by the Easton brothers and those who saw the offender flee the scene.
Nor was it established he owned or wore clothing or shoes the offender had been described as wearing. Mr Hall did not have any signs of injury which would have been expected in the circumstances.
Further, there was no apparent motive and nothing in Mr Hall’s history, circumstances or personal attributes to suggest a propensity to act the way the offender did.
What the compensation announcement and apology, or indeed Mr Hansen’s report, do not do is comment on the actions of any Crown agencies or particular individuals, assess fault or attribute responsibility.
Earlier this year the Solicitor General Una Jagose released a heavily redacted report from King’s Counsel Nicolette Levy, who had been appointed to inquire into the role of any Crown lawyers involved with the case.
Ms Levy found Crown lawyers did not fail in their responsibilities when they received information from Mr Wesley-Smith between 2018 and 2020.
However, the report was sent to the police for them to consider, and the redactions in the released report were in place to avoid jeopardising their investigation.
Any outcome of that investigation and that of the Independent Police Conduct Authority have yet to be revealed.
We would hope, after all this time, urgency is being applied to these matters, but not at the expense of thoroughness.
It must not be forgotten that all this delay will also have been harrowing and frustrating for the Eastons who are no closer to seeing anyone found properly responsible for the crimes which wracked their family.
The tortuous route of this case reinforces the need for the New Zealand Criminal Cases Review Commission which began accepting applications three years ago.
To the end of July this year, it had received 394 applications, an average of 11 a month.
It has completed 136 reviews.
So far, only one of the cases has been referred to an appeal court, involving a young man who was sentenced to 11 months in an adult jail in 2001 when he was 15, contrary to sentencing laws at the time.
