I have said for over a year that I would be amazed if the David Bain defence team pursue their compensation claim through the normal channels, as this requires a QC to inquire into the case and determine whether Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities.
There is a massive difference between reasonable doubt and balance of probabilities.
So I was not surprised to read today in the Herald:
Mr Reed told the Herald that Mr Power had informed the Bain camp that it had to prove that “on the balance of probabilities” Mr Bain was innocent.
Because Mr Bain did not have his murder convictions quashed on appeal without order of retrial, and was not given a free pardon, he must also show his compensation bid meets the standard of “extraordinary circumstances”.
“This is going to involve a huge case, which in our estimation may end up costing everyone about $10 million, with an overseas judge to be appointed,” Mr Reed said.
“We have offered a short cut, but that has been rejected. The short cut is that we talk to the Government about a negotiated settlement, because we are concerned that the cost of proving David’s innocence – which we are quite confident we can do – is going to be much greater than the amount of any compensation we would be claiming.”
That’s very noble of Mr Reed to worry about the cost to the taxpayer and generously put aside his own ability to charges thousands of hours of work, by offering to settle the claim without that minor technicality of proof of innocence on balance of probabilities.
I am sure in no way at all, are they worried about having to convince a QC that the “Robin did it theory” is not just plausible but in fact probable.