Sunday, February 26, 2012

Disputed compensation in controversial New Zealand case

As you can read here there were lots of irregularities in the original prosecution but New Zealand courts covered up for their colleagues by rejecting all appeals. It was only when Bain got his case into a British court that the holes in the case were acknowledged. Appeals to British courts from New Zealand were subsequently abolished!

In another noted New Zealand case, an Australian judge found that he had been confronted by "an orchestrated litany of lies" from New Zealand authorities. New Zealand is a small country where people stick by one-another -- even if they are in the wrong. The loss of an outside avenue of appeal is therefore a sad loss for ordinary New Zealanders -- but good for the New Zealand establishment

The appointment of a Canadian judge to assess compensation is an implicit confession of how corrupt the New Zealand judiciary is seen to be


A juror from the second trial of David Bain wrote to the justice minister urging him not to pay compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.

Mr Bain, 39, was acquitted in 2009 by a Christchurch jury of charges he murdered his parents Margaret, 50, and Robin, 58, and three siblings Arawa, 19, Laniet, 18, and Stephen, 14, in June 1994 in Dunedin.

The juror wrote to then justice minister Simon Power in April 2010 raising, among other things, misgivings about the conduct of the jury during the trial.

The Dominion Post cannot report much of the the letter because the law prevents the publication of material revealing the deliberations of a jury.The Bain juror also expressed concerns about the jury not having access to evidence that was suppressed until the verdict was reached and then released after the trial.

In the letter, the juror reveals three other jurors, of their own volition, visited Every St, where the murders took place, during the trial.

Jurors must reach their verdict only on evidence heard or seen in court. They must not make their own investigations during the trial.

In closing, the juror says: "Given the extraordinary length of this trial, the overwhelming media and public interest in the case, the complicated technical evidence, upsetting photos and exhibits, and the conflicting evidence of the experts, this trial certainly took an emotional toll on all of us." The jurors were offered counselling during and after the trial.

The Justice Ministry has appointed retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie to provide the Government with a recommendation on whether Mr Bain has shown on the balance of probabilities that he is innocent.

The ministry's acting chief legal counsel, Melanie Webb, said the assessment of whether someone should be paid compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment was a separate matter from the decision of a jury in a criminal case.

"This is why the letter in question has not been given to Justice Binnie at this stage. It is now Justice Binnie's role to advise on the basis of the available evidence whether David Bain is, at a minimum, innocent on the balance of probabilities and whether extraordinary circumstances

Original report here




(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today. Now hosted on Wordpress. If you cannot access it, go to the MIRROR SITE, where posts appear as well as on the primary site. I have reposted the archives (past posts) for Wicked Thoughts HERE or HERE or here

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

The "litany of lies" was used by a retired NZ judge not an Australian. The expression was used in reference to certain corporate employees of Air New Zealand in an enquiry into the Erebus air crash. I can assure the author there is nothing inherently wrong with the NZ system and we certainly do not need British overlords, judicial or otherwise, presiding over us. the Brits cut us adrift with regards to any benefit the Commonwealth any have afforded us, disregarded our shared ethnic background by rebuking preferred temporary visitor rights, so I'd be pleased if the tone of your posts was a little less patronising.

bussorah said...

Interesting that you don't deny the truth of what judge Mahon concluded

The Privy council also did not. It just concluded that he did not have jurisdiction