A group of Robin Bain supporters has launched a petition calling on Justice Minister Simon Power to deny his son David Bain's application for compensation for the time he spent in jail after being convicted of the murders of five members of his family in 1995.Whether Bain gets compensation or not should have nothing to do with public opinion. My understanding of the compensation procedure is that if it can be shown on a balance of probabilities that Bain is innocent, he will be entitled to compensation.
Advertisements were placed in major papers today, calling for people to sign up to the petition at www.davidbain.counterspin.co.nz.
By midday, just over 300 people had signed up.
So what are the petition organisers afraid of? If Bain's guilty as sin (and I assume that's what is behind the petition), how will he ever pass that hurdle? So what have they to fear?
I would be interested to know if any of the petition organisers are relatives who benefited from the estate of Bain’s parents. Bain lost his inheritance because he was found guilty in 1995 of the murder of his parents. I don’t know whether he would have a claim against those relatives now. But an award of compensation might give Bain the funds he needs to fight any legal battles over his inheritance. This is pure speculation, by the way. For all I know, his relatives might be of the view that if Bain is compensated he may be less likely to chase his inheritance.
Anyway, the petition's still dumb. Bain’s been tried and acquitted. One could make a strong argument that Bain should be given compensation even if it isn’t shown on the balance of probabilities that he didn’t kill his family. Why? Because he was locked up for 13 years for something ultimately the Crown failed to prove he did. Anyone who is imprisoned and subsequently acquitted should be entitled to compensation for time spent in prison. Otherwise, doesn’t it send the message that even though someone’s not guilty, they still deserved to be punished? That’s not how our justice system should work.
I’ve never formed a firm view on Bain’s guilt or innocence, and I find the ongoing did- he/didn’t-he speculation both pointless and boring. Critics of the Bain acquittal abound, and I’m sure the anti-Bain petition will attract many signatures. But so what? Are we really going to conduct a public poll each time there is a legal issue to be determined? The only poll that matters is the one taken in the jury room.
Maybe next time I get a speeding ticket I’ll start a petition.
Oh come on what an disingenous blog, obviously you believe Bain's innocence despite stating the ongoing speculation as 'pointless and boring' plus having a swipe at the petition. Your blog can hardly be construed as: 'I am so detached'
ReplyDeleteScott,you make some good points.While I do not wish to argue with you over the petition,just let me say this.In my opinion,the hearsay about Robin Bain molesting his daughter should never have been admissible.Justice Williamson got it right!Karam wrote "Robin was almost certainly molesting his daughter Laniet".This is the same Laniet who was quite happy to stay over with her father from time to time.To me,this assumption by Karam is absolutely outrageous.But of course,Robin Bain cannot sue him.
ReplyDeleteThen I would mention that jury.I am of the firm opinion that where a trial is going to last over,say,10 days,then it should be heard by three judges.What is happening now that many capable people are getting exemptions from long trials,and we are left with a pool of second or third rate jurors.Jurors who obviously do not know how to deliberate.Jurors that can come up with a verdict in just over five hours,after sifting through weeks of evidence.But certainly,should I decide to commit a murder,give me a third rate jury anytime.And of course ,a good Defence team,who can confuse those jurors with smoke and mirrors.
Mike
To Anonymous (1).
ReplyDeleteYou are wrong.
If I had an opinion on Bain's guilt or innocence I'd have shared it by now. I don't. Nor do I think there is much point on speculating whether Bain did it. Even if he did do it, he's served 13 years in jail. I don't much care about the verdict, because it's not something that can be changed, even if I did have an opinion. As a lawyer I'm more interested in the legal issues raised by the case.
I'm "having a swipe at the petition", to use your words, because there is already a process in place to determine whether Bain gets compo. If he's "guilty as sin", as I'm guessing you believe, then surely he won't get a cent of compensation. So what's the point of the petition? It's pointless and stupid. Let the proper legal processes take their course. It will be a grim day if these matters become popularity contests.
Mike,
ReplyDeleteI don't have an opinion on whether Bain did it (see my comment above), and of course you're entitled to your own opinion.
The jury system is by no means perfect - I agree with you there. But then no system is. I'm not sure we should cast out a system that's served us reasonably well because of one troublesome case.
In any legal system bad decisions will be made. Judges make plenty of them. That's why we have an appeals system.
Scott the "process in place to determine Bain's compo" involves an application being made to the Minister of Justice, Simon Power. As an elected official, Mr Power is answerable to the electorate and can be swayed by a petition. That is how democracy works, but you should know that.
ReplyDeleteWe have no way of knowing when/if Joe Karam makes his application but we do it anyway, because the petition also serves the purpose of enabling people to voice their opposition to Karam's media circus and his dubious legal techniques.
In a democracy you can choose to be silent or you can speak out. As a blogger you are speaking out. Given the lack of activity in your blog should we be using a four letter adjective in front of your blog as in "another XXXX blog", simply because from our perspective it doesn't appear to serve much purpose?
Kent, It is almost certain that Justice Minister Simon Power will refer the matter to a senior barrister, who will be asked to determine whether or not on a balance of probabilities Bain is innocent.
ReplyDeleteSo what is the problem? Surely if, as you maintain, Bain is guilty as sin, he'll be refused compensation and will end up being (more) vilified. Result, surely?
So I really don't understand the point of the petition. And I'm uneasy about matters of justice being decided by who gets the most signatures. That sounds too much like mob justice.
And feel free to call my blog anything you like. As you say, it's a democracy.
I would have thought that the retrial jury would return a Guilty verdict but they didn't. We are not taking any chances, since we don't know how much Karam's publicity campaign (which appears to have influenced this jury) has also influenced politicians and judges. I would be more worried if I were you in the possibility of Karam trying his techniques on other cases, whereby he writes books and makes appeals on Info-tainment programmes in order to get the verdict he wants.
ReplyDeleteMatters of justice are commonly decided by signatures and votes. Take the recent referendum on smacking. If you are referring to using signatures to decide Guilt or Innocence, that is not what we are doing. That is a decision that has already been made and we respect it. Our action is against a compensation payout being made. As you well know this is not automatic on acquittal being granted and is given on merits from a wide range of sources. A public petition has a place in that process, especially with respect to the initial decision by the Minister.
OK.Scott,here is how a layman sees it.It is already a grim day,in my opinion ,when a person like Joe Karam,also a layman,can have a guilty verdict overturned.Let the proper and legal processes take their course,you say.But hey,tell that to Karam,he's the one you should be talking to.I am almost 100% sure that whatever QC David Bain comes before will not grant him any compensation,but that did not stop me from signing the petition,which I consider a sensible petition and not a stupid one.And I don't need a lawyer telling me what I can or cannot do,thank you.If you find speculation pointless and boring ,then why comment.You seem to think that you know how the justice system should work.Well ,it did not work in this case.Let me rephrase that.The system worked ok until Karam got involved.
ReplyDeleteI will tell you that I have spent many hours studying all the evidence,and there is no question in my mind as to who the guilty party is.Should you decide to do likewise,I am sure you will come to the same conclusion.There is no room for reasonable doubt in this particular case,I'm afraid.
Mike
Gee Scott, did you turn off the obnoxious stupidity filter or something?
ReplyDeleteMike: Karam didn't overturn a guilty verdict - the court did.
Kent: If you want to make fun of someone's website I suggest you start here. Hovering over the "personnel" link is particularly amusing.
"Another XXXX one-man political movement" you might say.
Hi Felix,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link juice. Much appreciated.
Yes another XXXX one-man political movement. With the ageing of our current one man political movements, Peter Dunne, Winston Peters, Jim Anderton etc. I thought it time for replacement.
Gee Felix,please try to keep up with the play.The third rate jury overturned the guilty verdict.A jury that obviously spent no time deliberating the evidence.By the way,have you studied the evidence Felix?Had you done so you would have found 18 submissions that pointed to David Bain's guilt,4 that were disputable,and ,apart from hearsay evidence ,none that pointed to Robin Bain.And yet you still seem to think there is reasonable doubt!
ReplyDeleteNow to Scott.I hope you don't mind me making a comment in the same post as my reply to Felix.One thing I failed to mention in my last post was the fact that I was rather incensed by your suggestion that some of the petition organisers might be relatives of those who benefitted from the estate.Why on earth would you think that ?I would not be at all surprised if David Bain's relatives are just as much against the petition as you are.While I was not one of the petition's organisers,I was very pleased to hear about it.I was just one of many people who know a miscarriage of justice when they see one and wanted to make a stand.I am in my seventies,and before the retrial did not even own a computer.So I have been prepared to spend money in an endeavour to make every effort to see the end result is the correct one.I also helped pay for the advertisment.And,no,I am not a relative of the family.It is just that I do not like to see a man ,who had he lived,would have been much the same age as me,have his character besmirched by innuendo and rumour.
Mike
"It is already a grim day,in my opinion ,when a person like Joe Karam,also a layman,can have a guilty verdict overturned"
ReplyDeleteWhat Felis said. Anyone reading this thread would think Joe Karam was some kind of diabolical mastermind.
In fact he was very much the underdog, fighting against the Crown and its enormous resources. And he and others in the Bain team had to convince a series of judges before Bain even got to have a retrial.
"Let the proper and legal processes take their course,you say.But hey,tell that to Karam,he's the one you should be talking to"
I don't think I need to tell him. He's following those proper and legal processes to apply for compensation.
"And I don't need a lawyer telling me what I can or cannot do,thank you.If you find speculation pointless and boring ,then why comment."
I'm not telling anyone what they can or cannot do. I'm just pointing out that in my opinion the petition is a stupid one. And I don't find all speculation boring - just speculation on this topic from people who've read a couple of books and a few news articles and now think they're experts.
I don't know if Bain did it, but then I'm not qualified to make a decision on it, because, unlike the jury, I didn't sit through weeks and weeks of testimony. I don't have several weeks to devote to reading all the trial transcripts, so I'll just have to rely on what the jury decided. It's possible they got it wrong, but if they did I am optimistic the whole edifice of western civilisation won't come crashing down as a result.
"You seem to think that you know how the justice system should work."
I've never said the system is perfect. But if we're going to move away from the current system, it had better be in favour of a system that works better. Trial by opinion poll doesn't strike me the best model.
"One thing I failed to mention in my last post was the fact that I was rather incensed by your suggestion that some of the petition organisers might be relatives of those who benefitted from the estate.Why on earth would you think that ?"
ReplyDeleteIf you read my post you'll see I admitted it was mere speculation.
I also admitted the Bain relatives may very well be against the petition.
I was (and still am) trying to understand the motivations of the petition organisers.
Hullo,Scott.First let me try to explain to you again my motive for signing the petition.It has nothing whatever to do with trying to influence anyone ,as if the QC that David Bain will be appearing in front of,should he decide to seek compensation, would be influenced by our little old petition,anyway.Ijust wanted the general public,yourself included,to know that there was a group of like-minded people out there who are against any compensation being paid to David Bain,solely because a second or third rate jury,some of whom slept,giggled,passed notes to each other,and cried,was unable to deliberate the evidence,and spent just over five hours in reaching a verdict,when it probably should have taken them five days,had they done their job properly.I have spent many hours studying some of the court transcripts and some of the evidence against David Bain was so compelling that I find it hard to believe that the jury saw a case for reasonable doubt[always presuming they didn't all think he was innocent!]
ReplyDeleteNow to the cost of the trial.From your comments you will not be aware that over $2 million was spent on the Defence case,compared to $1.2 million by the Prosecution.Of course,for some unknown reason the Defence spent a lot of taxpayers money on overseas experts,why they could not have used local people I do not know.And then of course,we had that horrendous legal aid bill of $330000 paid to Karam.
As for your speculation about relatives of the Bain family having something to do with the petition,this is what I would call idle speculation,and to me ,it ill-behoves you to make it.
Could I just say that I would have absolutely nothing against David Bain's supporters setting up their own petition,should they wish to do so.After all,ours is a free country.
Scott,please keep the replies coming,I am enjoying our debate,as a long retired person it gives me something to do,and helps keep my mind active.
Regards,Mike
Hi all
ReplyDeleteI was really enjoying this debate before something happened to delete all the comments on my site . I'm sorry - but I did read all of them (at least as at about 7pm today) and my life is profoundly changed as a result. :)
Good morning Scott,sorry to hear about the delete,I was looking forward to my daily comment,Kent's counterspin site is excellent,but it does get a bit same old ,same old,and of course we are all singing the same song.Look,I know you say you havn't researched the Bain case to any great degree,but if you get a chance ,google Ministry of Justice section 6,The case against David Bain.There is an in depth look at certain evidence,such as the rifle ,glasses,Laniet's gurgling,etc.
ReplyDeleteRegards,Mike
anon:
ReplyDelete"and yet you still seem to think there is reasonable doubt"
No, the jury did.
And their star rating on your (no doubt scientific and accurate) jury rating system is about as pertinent as who my cat thinks is the best Bond.