David Bain compensation

March 26th, 2010 at 9:28 am by David Farrar

Personally I can’t wait for a QC to be appointed to investigate the case, and declare, on the balance of probabilities, whether it was Robin or David who killed the Bain Family.

If a senior QC really finds that on balance of probabilities it was not David, then he deserves compensation.

And if the QC does not make that finding, then it may effectively clear Robin’s name, and David will become our own OJ Simpson – legally acquitted by found on the balance of probabilities to have been liable.

Tags:

64 Responses to “David Bain compensation”

  1. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    This is not the time for David to be attracting attention to himself. I’m sure he can get some ready cash off flogging the story of his bizare family to the worlds womens trash mags (where are the feminists on THAT issue?).

    He should count himself exceedingly fortunate to be free and just keep werry werry quiet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Jeff83 (771 comments) says:

    Whilst we all know it is more likely that he did it, almost certain…it is not as certain as OJ which is just unbelievable. If you read about the evidence in that case it was just cringe worthy how badly they got it wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    We don’t all know it.
    Many in this forum decry religious belief.
    Presenting your own convictions as if they were truth is similar to proclaiming religious belief.

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

    I have a horrible feeling that the gummint will appoint a QC who is more inclined to find in favour of Bain.

    The other point about compensation is this, how come it is so easy for Bain to get a hearing yet Susan Couch has had to fight tooth and nail (and two governments who blocked her at every turn) to even get a hearing for her much deserved compensation package.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Interesting indeed. I’m sure it wasn’t the father and I’m very sure the first trial got it right. So what I find most interesting is what goes on in the mind of David Bain. Has he convinced himself that he didn’t do it? Otherwise, if it was me I would not want any further scrutiny of this case. I’m guessing that David believes his own BS and has – over the years – convinced himself that he didn’t do it.

    A good site for anyone who wants to reacquaint themselves with the evidence: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/

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

    The problem for Bain is not that someone has to prove his guilt as with his trial, but he has to prove he was innocent. Thats a very big ask, and if he fails to do so then he will end up wearing the label of the guy who didn’t prove he was innocent rather his current “not guilty” status.

    This is a big gamble for him and I don’t think its in his best interests. I’m not entirely sure it was his own decision either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    The question is quite simple. Is it more likely that David killed his entire family or is it more likely that Robin did it (with a full bladder)?

    Good luck with that.

    I wonder if Karam et al have become problem gamblers. They’ve beaten the system once so they think they can keep doing it?

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

    Thats would be what i’m thinking GPT1.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    BB – David does not get a hearing. Compensation payments have nothing to do with the Courts and everything to do with the Government. They are ex gratia payments and are considered by the Minister of Justice and cabinet. The process is outlined in the cabinet manual. There is no legal right to compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment in New Zealand.

    In the Croucher case the issue was whether a cause of action existed that Croucher could sue on. The Supreme Court have just confirmed there is, albeit one with a bar set perhaps oppresively high. Without a cause of action, she can’t sue. That was the issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Scorpio (407 comments) says:

    It does not make sense that Robin did it. But then I was not convinced that David did it either. Quite frankly, I felt that the investigation and the trails did not present clear evidence either way. It will be interesting to see the outcome of this. If he’s guilty, not much point in seeking compensation, I would have thought. But then If he’s guilty, I have no idea how his mind would work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    He will definately kill again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Fisiani (993 comments) says:

    All the “experts” will argue whether the killer was Robin or David. Compensation may or may not be paid. Yet Peter Ellis served seven years in prison for a crime THAT DID NOT EVEN HAPPEN. He was astonishingly never once assaulted in prison as none of the inmates considered him to be a paedophile. He was denied parole twice for daring to claim his innocence and not accept contrition. He was given no retrial. He was given no genuine enquiry. He was given no compensation. It is the biggest blot in the criminal history of New Zealand

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

    Cheese you evidence please. I think hes about as dangerous as toe fungus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    Based on the evidence I’ve heard I think it’s far from certain either way – some aspects of the case nudge me one way, and some aspects nudge me the other. Potentially damning aspects seem to have a counter damn. But I haven’t listened through the whole trials.

    (with a full bladder)

    Is it simply assumed that this is significant, or has there been supporting evidence?

    If I hear a possum making a racket in the early morning (or the dog make a racket telling me there’s a possum) I get up and shoot it before I think of having a piss.

    Murray: I agree that the cheese has major holes in it’s argument.
    Fisiani : I agree on Peter Ellis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    @ GPT1 and Murray – I daresay that this is at least as much Karam’s decision as it is Bain’s. The “not guilty” verdict ran the risk of ending his time in the media spotlight, and the commercial opportunities that arose as a result. After all, he’s written THREE books on essentially the same subject. At least this will keep the case in the papers for a while longer.

    If I were Bain (God forbid!), I would be slinking off overseas somewhere and starting afresh, away from the glare of publicity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. slightlyrighty (2,499 comments) says:

    This is a difficult issue. I do believe that Bain should be due a measure of compensation, given the Privy Council quashed the conviction on the basis that a miscarriage of justice hed occurred.

    The burden of proof that Bain has to establish is difficult. But that is besides the point. The justice system is set up so that it is protecetd from it’s own shortcomings.

    For any wrongly convicted man to prove his innocence after 13 years incarceration is a huge burden of proof. A prosecution is therefore sheltered from any liability. Did Bain kill his family. The possibility definately exists. But according to the law, Bain was wrongly convicted and as a result, has spent 13 years behind bars. Even if you believe that that Bain killed his family, I find the situation that the justice system can be proven wrong in a court of law, and not be liable for the effects of those decisions, laughable.

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

    If you were working at immigration would you let him in to your country Inv?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Razork (375 comments) says:

    Watch the compensation claim to include “costs” for karam et al

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    This is a big gamble for him and I don’t think its in his best interests. I’m not entirely sure it was his own decision either.

    Good point, Murray. IIRC, Joe Karam has a deal with David to split the proceeds of his books and other revenue. So perhaps David knows he did it, but is surrounded by a passionate group who believe him innocent so even if he wanted to slink away and count his lucky stars, he cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    I think hes about as dangerous as toe fungus.

    He’s probably a lovely bloke, but I certainly wouldn’t give him a turn on the 22 if we were out possum shooting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. KiwiGreg (3,218 comments) says:

    “Watch the compensation claim to include “costs” for karam et al”

    They got legal aid IIRC

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Inventory2 (10,177 comments) says:

    Interesting question Murray – he has no convictions, of course ….

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

    Yes but you don’t need a conviction to be labeled undesirable. Entering someone elses country is a privilage not a right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Le Grande Fromage (145 comments) says:

    Murray/Pete George

    Sorry I was being facetious.

    But then again it might only take something like a bit of sexual humiliation to get the black hands back in action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    David,

    We have reason to believe that ‘balance of probabilities’ may not apply because Karam is applying for compensation under some special criteria. In other words he is trying to circumvent the system by making a general plea.

    There is all the more reason to sign our petition at http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/add/signature Our aim is 10,000 signatures, then we’ll take it to parliament. People can sign anonymously which means we have your details but the public cannot see them.

    Thanks

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thedavincimode (6,590 comments) says:

    Murray

    Underestimate toe fungus at your peril.

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

    Don’t fear the fungus!

    MORE COWBELL!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. GPT1 (2,103 comments) says:

    Inventory 2 – your point about just quietly sliding off the radar (no doubt counting your good fortune) is well made. Of course, I suspect that Bain has convinced himself that he is innocent and has been wrongly convicted (if he hasn’t, Karam et al probably have) and therefore deserving of compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    This is Karem looking for his pay day. His last book deal went tits up after the Bain phone call was made public which wasn’t allowed in at the trial.

    Bain (David) is a murderer, he killed his entire family. Juries fuck up every day, look at the spy base rabble.

    A criminal trial is a complex thing, if you voted for MMP or labour and were on that jury you would obviuosly be too stupid to understand something as involved as this case was. The Jury system is a farce.

    DPF contact Crown Law in Wellington and get expert comment from them not a clown like Karem or 21 year old “journalists’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. menace (407 comments) says:

    surely he is entittled to compensation? what is the going rate for 13 years?

    10,000 signature? ten thousands fuck all of fuck all, and the letter isn’t exactly deep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Kent – this special plea you speak about is what the Minister will have a QC consider on the balance of probabilities I suspect. As I mentioned earlier, the courts are not involved in this process.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RRM (9,661 comments) says:

    “We, the undersigned, are petitioning you as Minister of Justice to hand David Bain over to us and let us string ‘im up – because we all “know” full well that he did it.”

    Sorry Kent Parker, won’t be signing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    If David Bain is innocent, let him open his mouth and talk.What is he frightened of?

    Perhaps a QC could examine and re-examine him under oath. A QC should also be able to talk to people who were not allowed to give evidence at the trial, such as those who knew his sister at the time of her murder, and made interesting statements about the family behaviour then.

    Meanwhile, as Fisiani pointed out in a 10.42 post, the great injustice of the trial and imprisonment of Peter Ellis in the Christchurch hysteria casel goes uncorrected. Power declined to look further into the Ellis case, whereas Don Brash indicated he was sympathetic to an Ellis inquiry. Power and National need to watch their step with this Bain claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften: I have spoken to a number of media today and they are all saying similar things, that Karam has created his own category and criteria upon which to judge his compensation bid. With legal aid you can buy anything!

    RRM, shame

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

    Before David Bain receives $ 2 million compensation I would like to know -
    • Did Robin Bain’s injuries show gunshot residue consistent with suicide or a more remote shooting?
    • What of David’s bizarre behaviour [St Kilda sand-hills with friends] between the murders and his arrest.
    • With rumours of incest being local hearsay, would Robin [beyond caring?] or David [failed relationship with girlfriend?] stand more ‘social’ damage from any ‘revelations’? Was not David most instrumental in Laniet being home at the time of the killings?
    • What of David’s reputed plan to use his paper-round as an alibi in a possible rape of a local jogger?

    These are just a few points I have wondered about before even considering the likes of the background suggested in http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/davids-motive

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Kent – well you can attempt to create criteria – I could too. The government can say “no, we have procedures in place for dealing with this sort of thing, and these will be followed.” Why do you think SP will listen to Karam? And why do you think anyone or anything has been bought?!

    It is like me suggesting I have been granted a right to a million dollars just because I wrote to the Minister telling him that I deserve it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften, at this stage I am still finding out myself what basis the compensation bid is being made on. I am sure that the papers will be full of it over the coming days.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (774 comments) says:

    How many people have read James McNeish’s The Mask of Sanity?
    motives for David are pretty clear in there
    great read

    I get sick of people saying David had no motive

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

    Has anybody in any reading of the case, or any other sources, seen reference to
    what seems a crucial point –
    • Did Robin Bain’s injuries show gunshot residue consistent with suicide or a more remote shooting?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    So why assert something you have no knowledge of Kent? Even if Karam has ATTEMPTED to create his own criteria this doesn’t mean they WILL be taken into account be the Minister.

    I think your attempt to influence this process is outrageous. Imagine writing to a judge to try and impact on the process. Let an impartial tribunal, whether or not it be one QC or three lay members or whatever, consider this. You clearly have a vested interest and are absolutely partisan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    NOt1, if we can have Citizens Initiated Referenda why shouldn’t we have Citizens Initiated Justice? That would sort a few things out (probably including overpopulation).

    Direct Democracy – Direct Justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. NOt1tocommentoften (436 comments) says:

    Like gays and racial minorities Pete?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. malcolm (2,000 comments) says:

    Did Robin Bain’s injuries show gunshot residue consistent with suicide or a more remote shooting?

    Yvette, I followed the case pretty closely at the time and I don’t remember anything about this. So, I’m guessing that this evidence or otherwise wasn’t gathered. I would recommend reading the evidence on http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz if you haven’t already done so.

    There is so much evidence against David and very little against Robin. E.g. why would an older teacher, presumably used to writing notes/comments etc all day by hand, choose to leave a one-line suicide note on a computer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    NOt1tocommentoften, I didn’t say I had ‘no knowledge’ and saying ‘we have reason to believe’ hardly seems to be asserting something. We, you me and the media are still finding out the full story. It is not a foregone conclusion that this will be decided in a nicely sealed room by a QC. Watch this space.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    No tests had been done for gunshot residue, to see whether Robin Bain had fired the rifle that was found next to his body.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/46339/bain-jury-asked-make-choice

    What about:

    Bloody sockprints on the carpet through the house were now said to be a perfect print for Robin’s feet rather than David’s.

    This showed Robin had been walking around the house rather than being shot from behind a curtain when he entered the lounge, as the crown claimed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. lastmanstanding (1,241 comments) says:

    Now whilst im still not sure about David Bain dont you just love the high hurdle both he and Susan Couch have been set as opposed to the hurdle the State sets itself.

    Let me explain. Take OSH legislation. The hurdle for the Crown is to prove a breach of the Act and fair enough. Offenders and are named and shamed in public and fined and can be imprisoned. Companies and Directors.

    Now lets look at the Susan Couch matter. NO name or shame took place. We dont know it was that screwed up. Susan ahs to prove almost the impossible against Corrections

    Same as David he has to prove his innocence even though the Judical system only required that a jury found on the balance that he was not guilty.

    See how the State manipulates the position to favour itself when it suits and disfavours the citizen when it suits.

    That why we have a LEGAL system not a JUSTICE system. Because if we had a JUSTICE system the pollies civil servants and the Judicary would shit itself witless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    In a LEGAL system, the side with the most money stands a better chance of winning…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. RKBee (1,344 comments) says:

    David Bain constipation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Lastmanstanding

    I have difficulty with your logic. In the case of a prosecution under Health and Safety legislation, the Crown must prove an offence beyond reasonable doubt. Usually, the charge relates to a separate identifiable act.
    In the case of David Bain, the Crown , making the allegation against Bain , was also obliged to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The judicial system did not require that a jury find “on the balance that he was not guilty”. It required proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Your comment about a requirement that a jury must find absence of guilt is incorrect.
    Susan Couch is suing for exemplary damages. Exemplary damage are damages in the nature of a penalty and involve a contumelious disregard for the rights of the plaintiff. Exemplary damages can arise from an individual and identifiable act (such as an assault). In this case, she seems to me to be basing her claim on a series of acts or omissions which led to a violent criminal being released into the community in circumstances where it was foreseeable that some harm could follow.

    It may well be that Susan Couch can point to a specific decision by an individual which led to Bell’s offending. It may be that she has to rely on a series of decisions by a number of individuals. That evidence has yet to come out.

    You overlook the fact that it is the judicial system that has decided that a cause of action may exist against Corrections and has allowed her to proceed.

    If you are of the view that David should not have to prove his innocence and that his entitlement to compensation arises once acquitted, where do you draw the line? If a bona fide prosecution is brought but fails, does every defendant who is incarcerated pending trial get compensation? What about the gang members who are acquitted as a result of some undisclosed witness intimidation?

    Unless David Bain can establishes liability based on the tort of false imprisonment (which cannot be established in this case), he has no right to compensation.

    The government (not the judicial system) has established guidelines for compensating where there has been unjust detention. Those guidelines require that a person claiming compensation proves innocence on the balance of probabilities. If you have a more acceptable line to draw in the sand, I would be interested in hearing it.

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

    lastmanstanding comments:

    That why we have a LEGAL system not a JUSTICE system. Because if we had a JUSTICE system the pollies civil servants and the Judicary would shit itself witless.

    And that’s why, even if you’re successful in suing and winning compensation, you’re suing the “Crown”, as if some doddery old German woman had tasered you, planted a bit of evidence, withheld other evidence useful to the defence, perjured themselves on the stand, slept through most of the trial, wrongly instructed the jury etc etc.

    Goodness me, it would never do to have police, prosecutors and judges held personally responsible for their incompetence or malicious acts, much less hold them accountable. No, they get left their to continue their corruption of justice while the poor old Queen cops the blame and dips into her vault.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Bob R (1,357 comments) says:

    How about a pardon for Scott Watson first? That is the most dodgy of these cases.

    http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?page_id=40

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    I think it is going to take a while for the media to work out what the true situation is. I just heard on Prime News that it will be going before a QC as expected. So who knows yet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. tristanb (1,133 comments) says:

    I just looked on Stuff.co.nz, I was sickened to see that 42.8% of voters in their current poll think Bain deserves compensation. How could so many NZers (albeit stuff readers) think this guy was innocent? Did Joe Karam vote 3000 times?

    The guy talked about using his exact same paper-boy alibi to “rape a jogger”! (Plus all the material evidence against him).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (23,326 comments) says:

    How could so many NZers (albeit stuff readers) think this guy was innocent?

    Strange isn’t it – so many people that obviously weren’t even on the jury think they know there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. david@tokyo (263 comments) says:

    > even if he wanted to slink away and count his lucky stars, he cannot.

    Indeed. It makes you wonder whether it would get on his nerves enough that he might …

    … take up another job delivering newspapers?

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

    Bob R

    While Watson may well be innocent I could not give a shit that he is banged up.

    Call it a case of natural justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jack5 (4,895 comments) says:

    Pete George posted at 6.43:

    …Strange isn’t it – so many people that obviously weren’t even on the jury think they know there was insufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt…

    Please do not use this jury as an example of wise citizens. Some of the jury members even partied with the David Bain mob almost straight after the trial ended. What blockheads.

    I guess that, with the miscarriage of justice in the jury verdict on the Waihopai wireless base vandalism, addle-headed leftits now regard juries as sacrosanct.

    With busy people dodging low-compensation for often drawn out jury service, juries now must contain a proportion of beneficiaries, bludgers, addicts, and yet-to-be detected crooks that’s even higher than these people exist in the NZ population as a whole.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if even Phllip Ure — Philu – could get on a jury these days. Imagine the stunned court reaction if he was elected foreman, and when asked for the jury’s verdict, Philu replied in his usual deranged style. That is a verdict full of fullstops and gurgling garble that could pass for double-encoded transmissions by a stoned Morse code signaller.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    Even though I think David killed his family, I believe he is entitled to some compensation. If all the evidence had been presented at his first trial, he’d probably have been acquitted. In other words, he wouldn’t have served 13 years in prison. That alone must count for something. Maybe there should be two tiers when it comes to compensating the wrongly convicted. All wrongly convicted people could receive, say, $10,000 for every year they are in prison but those who can demonstrate that they are likely to be innocent get $100,000 per year. David would get $10,000 per year but not the higher sum.

    Philospohically I am opposed to an accused having to prove his innocence. In the Peter Ellis case, there is no clear evidence that any child was sexually abused. If there is no clear evidence of a crime, how on earth would Ellis be able to prove his innocence?

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

    “While Watson may well be innocent I could not give a shit that he is banged up.”

    Clearly you are insane big blouse. What a disgrace you are. What a wacko!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. bainissoguilty (1 comment) says:

    The whole case Indicates:
    * Opinions can be heavily influenced by media.
    * Evidence can be ignored or interpreted rather interestingly.
    * A high percentage of Kiwis love supporting the under-dog.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Kent Parker (449 comments) says:

    An explanation of the extraordinary circumstances hurdle required for the Bain team to overcome can be found here: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/news/explanation-of-extraordinary-circumstances . This comes straight from the Ministry of Justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. cheated by the crown (1 comment) says:

    Hi can anyone tell me?
    If you are convicted of a crime and sent to prison, and later it is discovered that the crown failed to disclose a inducement to a crown witness (after being asked to by the trial judge) can you be compensated?

    I was convicted and sentanced to 5 years prison, but during the trial i made an application to the judge to have the crwon witness evidence thrown out as i believed that he was being given an injucment, The judge asked the crown prosecutor to make inquiries as to if the witness was recieving an inducment, the prosecutor recieved a copy of a sentance indicator relating to the witnes showing he was getting 2 years off his sentance for his co=operation with the police and the crown in my trial, however the crown prosecutor then retyped the sentance indicator leaving out the fact he was recieving the injucment, then presented it to my trial judge, so my application to have the witness evidence was dismissed was itself dismissed and the evidence was heard. The evidence of this crown witness was describe by the judge as “the glue that held the crown case toghehter” I was convicted and sentaced to 5 years jail, after 14 months i had my conviction quashed as i presented to the court of appleal the full sentace indicator showing the injucment, the court of appeal ruled that a misscarrage of justice had occoured, and ordered a re-trial, the crown chose not to offer any evidence at the re-trial so i applied for a section 357 ( i think) and all charges were dismissed. basicly i want to know if i can prove that the crown misled the court (which i can) can i be compensated?
    thanks for any help

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Hoots (1 comment) says:

    I’m just replying to a comment about how david could sell his story to make money if his compo falls through the thing is that he wouldn’t want to tell people, i believe if your granted a retrail then you should have to take the stand in order to put your side of the story through not a QC to fabricate a storie line or a load of garbage that they manage to sell as a defence. Any way it does not matter any more he’ off and you won’t here a peep out of him ever again because he knows just how lucky he is, that is my opinion of him and i’ve manage to talk to him and i believe that he did do that, of course mr Karam believes that he is innocent he has to he’s convinced himself of that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Judith (8,442 comments) says:

    David Bain does not have to prove he is innocent, to get compensation.
    If he is able to demonstrate his inability to prove his innocence is because the police did not collect the right evidence and/or conduct their investigation in such a manner, that it prevents him of proving his innocence, his application may still be successful.
    There are several reasons why he may use this point.
    1. No GSR tests conducted within the correct time frame.
    2. The destruction of evidence by burning the crime scene. (It is argued that David agreed to this, but at the time, he was hardly in a position to understand and accept the consequences of this action)
    3. The Police failure to secure and protect the crime scene on the day of the killings.
    plus various other known errors including the early decision that David or Robin were responsible, and as such, any alternative evidence was overlooked, ignored or destroyed.

    Proving his innocence is not a requirement despite what the Counterspin group would have a believe, there is sufficient movement within the guidelines to allow for the situation David Bain is in.

    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.