The Government today announced a fresh review of David Bain's bid for compensation.
Justice Minister Judith Collins today announced the establishment of a working group to review Bain's case.
Showing posts with label David Bain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Bain. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
Friday, December 14, 2012
Minister Contemplates Bain Options
David Bain’s compensation bid hit a major snag, after questions were raised about a judge’s report on his innocence.
Justice Ian Binnie’s report determined that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his family.
Justice Ian Binnie’s report determined that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his family.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
On Fisher v Binnie
I haven't read the Binnie or Fisher reports in full, or all the various correspondences or press releases being fired out by the participants in the latest David Bain fiasco.
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Collins Crushes Binnie Report
If I commissioned a notable international jurist to write a legal report for me, it would take a lot of convincing from others for me to throw it in the bin. But that appears to be what Justice Minister Judith Collins has done with Justice Binnie's report on David Bain's compensation bid.
Collins' behaviour is unusual, even bold, because Binnie is highly respected and his independence in this matter is unquestionable.
Collins' behaviour is unusual, even bold, because Binnie is highly respected and his independence in this matter is unquestionable.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Should Bain Get Compensation?
The Herald reports that a Canadian Supreme Court judge has recommended that David Bain receive compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Why Not Charge Him?
NZPA reports, via Stuff, that an internal police investigation has concluded one of the witnesses in the David Bain trial was "untruthful".
According to the report, it was believed there was sufficient evidence for a perjury charge, but police decided not to proceed.
I find it difficult to understand why police would label someone as untruthful, but decline to press charges. It seems to go against the idea that a person should be regarded as innocent unless found guilty.
Given the enormous controversy generated by the Bain trial, it would surely have been in the interests of justice to pursue the alleged perjurer if there was strong evidence. So why didn't they?
Was their case perhaps not as strong as they made out? Is this merely an example of the police attempting to save face over their botched investigation?
According to the report, it was believed there was sufficient evidence for a perjury charge, but police decided not to proceed.
I find it difficult to understand why police would label someone as untruthful, but decline to press charges. It seems to go against the idea that a person should be regarded as innocent unless found guilty.
Given the enormous controversy generated by the Bain trial, it would surely have been in the interests of justice to pursue the alleged perjurer if there was strong evidence. So why didn't they?
Was their case perhaps not as strong as they made out? Is this merely an example of the police attempting to save face over their botched investigation?
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
No Early Christmas for Bain As Settlement Bid Falls Flat
The Government probably didn’t waste too much time in rejecting a settlement proposal by the legal team of David Bain.
According to the Herald, the proposal was for an amount to be paid to Bain in settlement of any claim Bain would have for wrongful imprisonment.
The trouble is that to be entitled to compensation Bain would need to effectively prove his innocence. Without wishing to pre-judge the strength of any compensation claim, that would seem a tough task. It may be a reflection of the tough battle Bain faces that his team have made the bid to settle, even though they must have known it would almost certainly be rejected.
The rejection is appropriate and right, not because Bain may not be innocent, but because the thing about justice is that it must be seen to be done. A deal done behind closed doors without a review of all the evidence would leave many believing that a murderer just got rewarded for his ill deeds. Many remain convinced that Bain killed his family.
The desire of Bain’s legal team to spare the taxpayer a lot of money is laudable. However, cost should not be a primary driver when issues of justice are concerned.
According to the Herald, the proposal was for an amount to be paid to Bain in settlement of any claim Bain would have for wrongful imprisonment.
The trouble is that to be entitled to compensation Bain would need to effectively prove his innocence. Without wishing to pre-judge the strength of any compensation claim, that would seem a tough task. It may be a reflection of the tough battle Bain faces that his team have made the bid to settle, even though they must have known it would almost certainly be rejected.
The rejection is appropriate and right, not because Bain may not be innocent, but because the thing about justice is that it must be seen to be done. A deal done behind closed doors without a review of all the evidence would leave many believing that a murderer just got rewarded for his ill deeds. Many remain convinced that Bain killed his family.
The desire of Bain’s legal team to spare the taxpayer a lot of money is laudable. However, cost should not be a primary driver when issues of justice are concerned.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Bain Jury Shock: Juror Didn't Break Rules
The Herald reports that a juror in the Bain case didn't disclose a prior theft conviction.
Shock, horror, gasp!
Hang on. Jurors are not obliged to disclose their prior convictions, and a prior conviction does not prevent a person from serving on a jury. However, if a convicted person receives a prison sentence they may be prevented from serving.
According to the Press the juror in question received a community service sentence for theft. So no jury rule was broken.
Did it affect the outcome of the case? We don't know. It's possible a juror's criminal past might cause them to feel sympathy for the accused. So what? That's still a big assumption to make. Supposing the same juror knows someone who was once the victim of violence. Does that now make the juror more hostile? People are complex and unpredictable, and we cannot assume that one experience out of many in a person's life will influence all of their decisions.
We are stuck with fallible humans in our justice system, because as far as I'm aware we are not yet at the stage of developing a seriously smart and infallible computer to determine whether or not someone is guilty of an offence.
So I can't see what the point of the story was. Were we meant to be scandalised? Does this mean our jury system isn't perfect after all? Maybe we should just throw the whole system out and get Paul the Octopus to make the calls.
Shock, horror, gasp!
Hang on. Jurors are not obliged to disclose their prior convictions, and a prior conviction does not prevent a person from serving on a jury. However, if a convicted person receives a prison sentence they may be prevented from serving.
According to the Press the juror in question received a community service sentence for theft. So no jury rule was broken.
Did it affect the outcome of the case? We don't know. It's possible a juror's criminal past might cause them to feel sympathy for the accused. So what? That's still a big assumption to make. Supposing the same juror knows someone who was once the victim of violence. Does that now make the juror more hostile? People are complex and unpredictable, and we cannot assume that one experience out of many in a person's life will influence all of their decisions.
We are stuck with fallible humans in our justice system, because as far as I'm aware we are not yet at the stage of developing a seriously smart and infallible computer to determine whether or not someone is guilty of an offence.
So I can't see what the point of the story was. Were we meant to be scandalised? Does this mean our jury system isn't perfect after all? Maybe we should just throw the whole system out and get Paul the Octopus to make the calls.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Nothing New Learned
I didn't catch the documentary on Robin Bain last night, but from the reports I’ve read I’m not sure I missed much.
I understand that the supposedly new evidence is based on discrepancies between a photocopier sales document and a witness’s testimony. That doesn’t mean that everything the witness said can be discounted. If someone giving testimony in 2009 made a mistake about who sold a photocopier in 1993, does that mean all their testimony should be disregarded?
So forgive me if I don’t get too excited by this new evidence.
The reaction of David Bain’s defence team to the documentary is no surprise. Any suggestion that Robin Bain wasn’t the murderer harms the reputation of their client, so you would expect them to rubbish the programme and its makers, regardless of the quality of any new evidence.
So we’re left none the wiser.
But it has always astonished me how certain many people are about what happened on the day of the killings, and about who was responsible. I have no idea whether David or Robin was the killer, and nothing I have read or heard during or since David’s retrial has left me any wiser. So the jury verdict was no great surprise. Their job was to determine whether David Bain was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For all I know they may have thought he probably did it, but decided to acquit because they could not be certain.
An active movement exists to resurrect the reputation of Robin Bain, and to continue the vilification of his son. Maybe I just have old-fashioned notions about how our justice system ought to work, because I find the whole thing distasteful. David Bain spent thirteen years in jail – that’s only three years short of the minimum sixteen year non-parole period handed down to him. If he was the killer he at least served most of his sentence. And if he was innocent he has been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
There is a process in place to determine whether David Bain ought to get compensation for his time in prison, and I’d much rather we let that process run its course. Whether David Bain is entitled to compensation shouldn’t be a popularity contest.
I understand that the supposedly new evidence is based on discrepancies between a photocopier sales document and a witness’s testimony. That doesn’t mean that everything the witness said can be discounted. If someone giving testimony in 2009 made a mistake about who sold a photocopier in 1993, does that mean all their testimony should be disregarded?
So forgive me if I don’t get too excited by this new evidence.
The reaction of David Bain’s defence team to the documentary is no surprise. Any suggestion that Robin Bain wasn’t the murderer harms the reputation of their client, so you would expect them to rubbish the programme and its makers, regardless of the quality of any new evidence.
So we’re left none the wiser.
But it has always astonished me how certain many people are about what happened on the day of the killings, and about who was responsible. I have no idea whether David or Robin was the killer, and nothing I have read or heard during or since David’s retrial has left me any wiser. So the jury verdict was no great surprise. Their job was to determine whether David Bain was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. For all I know they may have thought he probably did it, but decided to acquit because they could not be certain.
An active movement exists to resurrect the reputation of Robin Bain, and to continue the vilification of his son. Maybe I just have old-fashioned notions about how our justice system ought to work, because I find the whole thing distasteful. David Bain spent thirteen years in jail – that’s only three years short of the minimum sixteen year non-parole period handed down to him. If he was the killer he at least served most of his sentence. And if he was innocent he has been the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice.
There is a process in place to determine whether David Bain ought to get compensation for his time in prison, and I’d much rather we let that process run its course. Whether David Bain is entitled to compensation shouldn’t be a popularity contest.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Karam Sues
So Joe Karam has had enough of having his name and reputation besmirched, and is now suing.
Not so Karam. He has been the subject of much colourful commentary over the last year or so. Kent Parker commented on this site a few times after I criticised the online petition to deny Bain compensation, and other supporters of the "get Bain" campaign joined in. They clearly dislike Karam. Karam believes some of them have crossed the line and defamed him.
Because the matter is before the court, I'll say no more. But this promises to be a fascinating legal battle.
David Bain supporter Joe Karam has started legal action against several individuals for defamation.I did wonder if this might happen. I suspect David Bain is fair game, because anyone who calls him a murderer would be able to use the defence of truth - after all, how does Bain show it isn't true? In a civil case where the legal test is balance of probabilities (rather than beyond reasonable doubt), he'd probably lose.
Mr Karam said he had issued two claims in the High Court at Auckland against members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group (JFRB) and counterspin.co.nz, and the Trade Me website.
Not so Karam. He has been the subject of much colourful commentary over the last year or so. Kent Parker commented on this site a few times after I criticised the online petition to deny Bain compensation, and other supporters of the "get Bain" campaign joined in. They clearly dislike Karam. Karam believes some of them have crossed the line and defamed him.
Because the matter is before the court, I'll say no more. But this promises to be a fascinating legal battle.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Another Dumb Petition
Well this is a bit silly.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)