It was a near-full house at The Piano on Sunday 31 August, a buzzy crowd eager for the inside scoop on the "trial of the century" - a perspective that could not be delivered more compellingly by anyone but Steve Braunias: author, literary editor at Newsroom, and reporter on the infamous 'Polkinghorne' case. For those who are unfamiliar with the case, former eye surgeon Philip Polkinghorne was accused of murdering his wife Pauline Hanna in their home in 2021. He claimed it was a suicide, but initial investigation placed doubt on his version of events. Though there were many 'scandalous' details brought up throughout the trial - including Polkinghorne and Hanna's shaky relationship, Polkinghorne's trysts with sex workers, and his methamphetamine usage - the jury ultimately found that Polkinghorne was not guilty.
The session was chaired by the brilliant Lianne Dalziel, previously an MP and Mayor of Christchurch, who to no one's surprise asked such insightful and precise questions that Braunias joked it seemed like he was "appearing before the select committee".
Though at last year's WORD festival Braunias claimed he was done with true crime, this clearly was not the case - he's since released "Polkinghorne: Inside the Trial of the Century, an excellent narrative account of both the case and his own involvement as a journalist. It's a compelling title, the "Trial of the Century". Perhaps too big a claim for so early in the century, Dalziel quipped, but the media coverage can hardly be compared to any other Kiwi case of the last 25 years except that of Grace Millane, the British backpacker who was tragically murdered in 2018. And we're creatures that thrive on stories of "high income, low moral gossip." As Braunias put it, we want to "stand at [Polkinghorne's] front door and curtains, and look through at the life he led."
Who is Philip Polkinghorne?
It's easy to see why Braunias "betrayed his oath" and picked up the true-crime pen again so rapidly. The real draw for him was, however, that Polkinghorne was surprisingly easy to relate to. For observers who could imagine such a scenario - the depraved, premeditated killing of a wife, carried out by her husband, a man hooked on meth and sex workers - the idea that Polkinghorne could be likeable is a hard one to get your head around. And yet, Braunias spent eight weeks with the man over the course of the trial. They chatted; sometimes small talk, sometimes more complex topics. He was a good listener. He texted him to express his condolences over the loss of Braunias' brother. In his role as an eye surgeon, he would occasionally write off the costs for surgery for patients who could not afford them. Even the security guards in the courtroom liked him! People called him "Phil". Braunias admitted:
A part of me wanted to think that he didn't do this. [But]... we're all capable of doing the most appalling things.
And certainly, there were things about Polkinghorne that were distasteful. He was a meth user (a drug Braunias describes as a "column of flame laying users to waste" that was primarily for young, non-rich people - so what was a rich upper-class surgeon like Polkinghorne doing with it?) He spent exorbitant amounts of money on sex workers. Even his name itself invokes an odd mixture of feelings, as Braunias so wittily puts it in the introduction of his book:
Polkinghorne, those three syllables thrown together almost at random, forming a name that will remain fixed as a garish icon in the psychic territories of the New Zealand mind, will achieve a sordid immortality but an immortality nonetheless, supernatural and haunting. Say his name three times into a mirror and you might see him suddenly appear behind you, small and enthusiastic, a blue-eyed voodoo doll, a demon of wealth and white privilege hopping up and down on his madly socked feet - Polkinghorne, Polkinghorne, Polkinghorne.
Pauline Hanna
It's so easy to get wrapped up in the near-mythological entity that is Polkinghorne that we almost forget the true sorrow of this case, which is the tragic death of Pauline Hanna. Though she saw many things in Polkinghorne too, their marriage was not a happy one. Braunias got to know her family over the course of the trial. It was clear how much they loved her - their "faces lit up" when they would speak of her. She was a shining beacon, a charismatic, adored person whom they all looked up to. In contrast, Hanna's family despise Polkinghorne and are convinced he is responsible for her death. A private recording between Hanna and family has been used by the defence to oppose this argument, wherein Hanna repeats, "Don't worry darling, I'm perfectly safe."
Dalziel asked Braunias a brilliant question - throughout the book, Hanna's purchases like drycleaning, makeup, and clothes are itemised. Why did he make this choice? Why did we need to know about Hanna's purchases, and could this be seen as intrusive?
Braunias joked, "I would like to know about your purchases!", but delivered an incredibly moving answer. Not only had Polkinghorne spent over $286,000 on sex workers, so it was only fair to itemise Hanna's purchases which were nothing in comparison, but -
These were [Hanna's] receipts of living in a gilded cage.
All the things she spent money on - her outfits, her appearance - were to maintain her beautiful presentation, to give her something to keep going, to make Polkinghorne happy, to appease this man who treated her poorly. No matter the truth of what happened that night, a wonderful spirit, who was beloved by those around her and who suffered greatly in life, was extinguished - and that is incredibly devastating.
Not guilty
And indeed, we do not know the truth of that night. But there is a legal truth that has been decided, which is that Polkinghorne did not do it. On the evidence provided, the jury decided that the Crown prosecution were unable to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that Polkinghorne committed the murder of Pauline Hanna that fateful night.
As Braunias noted, the Crown conducted their prosecution as if it were a "tabloid trial". They "brought up the hookers, and the meth." They had a great story, a narrative - a word that Braunias is sick of. Though he did admit, as Dalziel brought up, his column might have contributed to the overall narrative...
Nevertheless, at the end of the day Polkinghorne's salacious personal life did not have much to do with murder. Sure, he pleaded guilty to the methamphetamine charges - but he didn't have much choice in that, said Braunias:
There's an analogy - if there's a library book in your house, that means you've been to the library.
(Yes, this quote did make it into the library blog, Steve!)
But what the jury needed and wanted in relation to the murder charge was facts. And you "do not have a good story without facts." Make no mistake, the jury did not like Polkinghorne and came to a "reluctant verdict", but it was the correct verdict all the same - they simply did not see the evidence to show he did it. Polkinghorne himself said repeatedly throughout the trial, "Wait for the science." And the science, so far, has shown that Hanna did not die by strangulation. As Braunias put it:
Sense tells you he killed his wife; the facts tell you otherwise.
An inquest, and Madison Ashton
There may be more that remains to be seen in this Polkinghorne saga. Next year, a coronial inquiry will take place into the cause of death of Hanna. Madison Ashton, the sex worker with which Polkinghorne had an involved relationship, famously failed to take to the witness stand throughout the trial. However, she is set to appear at this hearing. Though it is a forensic examination and will be a "less spectacular event" than the trial, it will undoubtedly have a massive following.
Dalziel asked why Braunias thought Ashton did not give evidence at that first trial, even though she has confided in him that she believes Polkinghorne did it. Could her involvement have made a difference?
Braunias spoke of Ashton's supposed 'disappearance' ("they couldn't find her... but she was in Greece! She emailed me!") Her speaking on the stand would have provided a motive for Polkinghorne. The prosecution's argument would be that Polkinghorne wanted to get rid of his wife and start a new life with Ashton. After all, Hanna and Polkinghorne were hardly living together anymore and he "had bought [Ashton] a washing machine."
Bruanias' impression of Ashton was that she was an incredibly smart woman who spoke in intricate, complex sentences "better than anything I can write!" But she was also vulnerable and easily hurt. Throughout the police investigation, she felt that she was disrespected, looked upon as nothing but a 'mere sex worker'. Furthermore, the lawyer for the defence was well known as a hard man. His cross-examination could well have muddled and compromised her story. It's a tough gig, being on the witness stand.
Some final questions
With the turn of the hour quickly approaching, Braunias answered a few more questions from both Dalziel and the audience, including the following:
- Jury trial (adversarial), or judge-only trial (inqusitorial)? It's much better that twelve people consider it than only one person. There is "a beauty to the concept" of picking twelve random people, an "affirming faith in society" that they will come to the right conclusion. The jury in Polkinghorne's trial "listened with great care, except one woman who fell asleep and later went on a cruise."
- Antiquated forms of punishment that might be better than cross-examination? Bring back the hot iron! If they'd used that to get the truth out of him, "people would have paid to see that! The government could have taken the money and wasted it on... something else."
- Writing two reports in advance of the verdict: In "Polkinghorne - Inside the Trial of the Century", you can read the article that would-have-been had the jurors decided differently. (It calls Polkinghorne a number of names that I don't think I can repeat in a library blog).
- What is Polkinghorne up to now? He's still a rich, well-off man, so he's doing the same as he always does - "living large, walking the streets of Remuera with his wretched bulldog."
And so, the session came to a close. Though it was dotted with moments of hilarity and shocking revelation, it was still poignant. Braunias paid plently of respect to Pauline Hanna, who unfortunately became a kind of "postscript" to the substantial figure that is Polkinghorne but is in truth the centre of the trial. It was wonderful to hear Braunias and Dalziel talk, both such intelligent people with thoughtful questions and answers.
If it truly is too early for this case to be "the trial of the century", I'm sure we'll see Braunias continuing on his true crime course when the next sordid case captures the public imagination. But it's hard to imagine any having quite so impactful a name as "Polkinghorne." (It really does sound like a curse, doesn't it?)
More Steve Braunias
- Find more books by Steve Braunias at the library
- Quick questions with Steve Braunias - WORD Christchurch Festival 2025
Love true crime?
Check out our non-fiction true crime reading guides. If you're keen for another Kiwi crime fix, our New Zealand Non-fiction - True Crime list will be perfect for you!
Or ask a librarian for a personalised recommendation!
WORD Christchurch
- WORD Christchurch website
- Follow WORD Christchurch on Instagram, Facebook and TikTok
- Our WORD Christchurch 2025 page - Find books by writers from this year's festival and check out our coverage of WORD events
Add a comment to: “Polkinghorne, Polkinghorne, Polkinghorne” – Inside the Trial of the Century at WORD Christchurch 2025