Bain loses bid for acquittal

December 9th, 2008 at 7:47 am by David Farrar

The Privy Council has rejected a bid by to have im acquitted of the murders of his family, without a trial.

Good. The case deserves a trial to resolve it.

Tags: ,

22 Responses to “Bain loses bid for acquittal”

  1. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Any chance that NZ can get to re-establish the Privy Council relationship?

    THis was one of the worst consequences of the Labour Administration.

    IMHO an attempt to control the Judicial Process by HC, and move towards a Ropublic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. reddeath26 (97 comments) says:

    @Glutaemus Maximus-
    Correct me if I am wrong, but are you implying that one of the worst consequences of the Labour Administration is they were trying to turn New Zealand into a Republic?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

    I agree that this should go to trial, otherwise there will never be a firm resolution one way or the other.

    That said, it looks like there is some serious game playing going on between Crown and Defence. I am really looking forward to the re-trial.

    We were very sceptical about the Supreme Court being just the Court of Appeal (which doesn’t have a great reputation among many lawyers) in drag due to having the same judges, but they have really taken an independent approach to the law. Personally, I credit Dame Sian Elias for much of this, as she certainly seems to have a very good approach to ‘matters of public importance’.

    But I agree with GM, bring back the Privy Council. In the last couple or three years it has shown itself to still be a step above the New Zealand courts in the robust nature of its approach and its willingness to be completely independent from the views of the State.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    But they did get a win. They got agreement from the NZ Attorney General that the Bain team will be aBLE TO RAISE all AND any matters relevant to the case in court.

    You see the court system isnt really about justice – its about process and as such there are many things the defence are NOT ALLOWED to raise in court. The Peter Ellis case is a prime example of this. Only the prosecution can normally raise matters.

    So – if your defence is that your finger prints are not on the gun, but if the prosecution dont raise the finger prints – then the defence cant raise it in their defence!!.

    So there is serious game playing going on. Recent changes to court rules mean that you cant even give evidence in your own defence – unless called by the prosecution.

    We certainly do need a court of higher intellenence and its a great shame that the brains, independance and stature of the Privy council were removed. Forget the republic issue , our problem is judges that carry social barrows with them. (It was interesting to hear the previous speaker Margaret Wilson – say recently that the Treaty will prevent us becoming a republic – and for her to admit this is really news as she was one of the flag bearers for a republic)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. big bruv (13,558 comments) says:

    “The case deserves a trial to resolve it.”

    There has already been a trial, Bain is as guilty as sin.

    [DPF: That trial was found to be flawed though. So please do not express opinions on guilt or innocence until this next trial is concluded, to avoid the Solictor-General taking an interest in Kiwiblog]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. helmet (807 comments) says:

    Well I’m glad you’re sure of it Bruv. Geez we’re lucky to have you around.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dad4justice (7,976 comments) says:

    Well Mr Bain will be thankful that the Privy Council declared a miscarriage of justice and ordered a trial de novo. Quite ironic that the deceptive Liarbour Party severed all ties with the Law Lords when Ms Wilson was the attorney general? The state of our dysfunctional justice system is beyond belief and the appeal rights a sick joke for Joe average as the filing costs are bloody expensive thanks too Dumbo Rick Barker. Not to mention the Court of Appeal and Supreme Courts are pathetic white elephants who carefully choose what cases they hear!
    I wonder if the National party clean up the Justice System? Yeah right pigs can fly!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,663 comments) says:

    Has anyone asked Key about reinstating the privy council? Or would the backlash be too much?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. F E Smith (3,315 comments) says:

    “Has anyone asked Key about reinstating the privy council? Or would the backlash be too much?”

    Not from the legal profession- 75% of us were against losing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Camryn (551 comments) says:

    Dime – Who would backlash? I suspect this matters little to most of the population and that lack of perceived importance would be matched by an equal lack of understanding or awareness. I agree we should reconnect to the PC, I just don’t think public opinion needs to be considered as a factor at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Happy for NZ to become a Republic when the time is right. Not when it is done by Stealth, and in a covert wat to subvert the ‘Rule of Law’ in the Helen First Party. She had the Police HQ by the knackers, and grabbing the Judiciary by the knackers was a real problem, given problem No 1.

    PC was the best, and cheapest ‘Supreme Court’ possible for a country like NZ. And the UK also got tangible benefit.

    If NZ decides to hook up with the West Island, then things would be different.

    As for HM and the relationship with NZ. Surely on her death or Succession there should be a referendum on the way forward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Zapper (965 comments) says:

    Agree with Big Bruv. Guilty. as. sin.

    That is based on following and researching the case since 1994. I’m not going to spell out the evidence here though. He will be acquitted in all probability though. I can’t see how a jury will be selected that won’t have been influenced by Karam and the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Yes we should become a republic because lewis holden says so and screw the vast majority of the country who either don’t it or can’t tell you the difference between a republic and a constitutional monarchy anyway.

    If the words “President Clark” don’t cure constipation for you nothing will. Given New Zealands stellar history of cocking up political change – I refer you to MMP – I really don’t think screwing around with power of this magnitude for one individual on the principle of “it seemed like a good idea at the time” is really the way to go. Particularly when the spokeslemming for the republicans seems to have a list of arguments for republicanism that do not extend outside personal abuse for the royal family.

    Another case of fucking with a working system for the sake of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Yvette (2,744 comments) says:

    Am I too influenced by CSI, CSI-New York,CSI – Miami, Bones and a whole host of other crime/science programmes to wonder if a fatal rifle shot wound trajectory and gunshot residue would not indicate a possible self-shooting or indicate more distance involved than one could physically achieve oneself to do the job, or were none of these tests available or taken at the time? An answer to this question would probably be an answer to the whole trial. An official review of this question: did the evidence expertise exist and if so what did it indicate, could save a few million dollars?

    Oh, this evening it is HOUSE: accidentally observation, near missed initially unrelated symptom or a coincidental sentence in his current over-due library book, if not a colleague’s misinterpreted mutterings.

    PS:
    “Pinging is currently not allowed.” – what is ‘to ping’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    There has already been a trial, Bain is as guilty as sin.

    big bruv may have been referring to Bain Snr ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. insider (1,030 comments) says:

    There’s a damn sight more direct physical evidence linking Bain junior to the killings than there was for the Curtises in the recent child abuse case yet I doubt we will have any celebrities and kindly grandmothers with a fondness for home knits protesting their innocence for years on end.

    Yvette

    of course they were, that’s why the suicide issue was never credible.

    [DPF: Please do not express opinions on guilt or innocence until this next trial is concluded, to avoid the Solictor-General taking an interest in Kiwiblog]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    The problem can be solved without reference to physical evidence and the tortuous CSI shenanigans that involves. Instead, let us look at the psychology…

    Barring the involvement of some hitherto unknown third party (who entered the house, slaughtered the family, and has never been heard of again), it becomes a toss-up between Robin and David.

    Which is more likely?

    - A father who slaughters his family, but spares David as he is “the only one who deserved to live”. (This scenario involves Robin Bain shooting his 14 year old son, who put up a struggle, but somehow David is seen as fit to be spared? Why him in particular?)

    - A son who slaughters every member of his family and then tries to hide what he has done (possibly even blotting it out). The use of the computer to write the message was the action of a younger man. An older person would simply have written a note.

    Ask yourselves, have you ever heard of a mass killer choosing to spare one particular member of his family? And even in such circumstances, would it not be the youngest and most vulnerable (or innocent) who would be spared?

    [DPF: Please do not express opinions on guilt or innocence until this next trial is concluded, to avoid the Solictor-General taking an interest in Kiwiblog]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Zapper (965 comments) says:

    Yep, good post Colonel. The suicide note is a major part of the case for me. Knowing your son is due home any minute, do you turn on a computer that takes some time to start up, or grab a pen and paper?

    The only reason the note was written on the computer was because the handwriting would have given away who wrote it. And David Bain is the only one worried about that.

    And furthermore, why would Robin Bain leave all this evidence pointing at “the only one who deserved to stay”?

    [DPF: Please do not express opinions on guilt or innocence until this next trial is concluded, to avoid the Solictor-General taking an interest in Kiwiblog]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Ratbiter (1,265 comments) says:

    Yeah! You’ve cracked it Colonel, the boy’s *obviously* guilty! Let’s go string him up right now. Damn shyster lawyers and crookid judges just go confusing people and twisting their words, with all their pretty talk…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    Indeed Ratbiter. In fact if you look up “reasonable doubt” in any reputable legal dictionary it will define it as “the weight of irrefutable and absolute proof needed to outweigh any such speculative theory as a jury may wish to concoct based on their own unqualified ‘understanding of psychology’ or other such folklore as may be considered appropriate”.

    Why the hell we did away with ducking chairs I’ll never know. I put it down to all those guilty bastards who floated instead of doing the decent thing and drowning to prove their innocence bewitching us with this fancy talk of “justice”.

    Given the piercing insight into the mind of a killer – and the unwavering certainty with which it’s expressed – by so many commenters on Kiwiblog, I have to wonder whether Mr Plod wouldn’t do well to commence their cold case reviews by tracing IP addresses :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    Murders be buggered, convict him for the jersey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. J1 (3 comments) says:

    I have not followed every inch of the trial so do not have a fully formed opinion. I do pray though that justice will be done, whatever that is. If he is innnocent and the scapegoat of some awful thing let the poor man go, if he is not than let him tell the truth and help him. Amen. This is what we should all be focused on, that the truth will prevail and that proper justice whatever that means be done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.