Bain juror says no compo

February 24th, 2012 at 9:45 am by David Farrar

Martin van Beynen writes at The Press:

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

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.

Much of the letter cannot be reported 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.

Three jurors visited the street? My God.

The Justice Ministry has appointed retired Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie to provide the Government with a recommendation on whether 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 exist justifying compensation.”

While interesting, this does not affect the process. A juror can hold a legitimate view that David Bain was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but did do it on the balance of probabilities. However for the purpose of compensation it is Justice Binnie who will effectively decide, not jurors.

Tags:

88 Responses to “Bain juror says no compo”

  1. Longknives (4,686 comments) says:

    “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”

    Why on earth did this juror not raise these issues DURING the trial?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Akaroa (552 comments) says:

    Hmmmm.

    Pretty indicative of widely held public opinion though, I would imagine?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Mark (496 comments) says:

    Jurors vist Every Street and after giving out the not guilty verdict go out and celebrate with David Bain.

    I dont think either of those things are normal for a jury to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. MT_Tinman (3,108 comments) says:

    I fear this whole thing with the Cannuk is designed so the murderer will get a large sum of taxpayer money and the gummint can say “It wasn’t my fault.”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,437 comments) says:

    I don’t know what the problem is with visiting Every Street. There’s nothing really to see there, the house is long gone, it’s hard to tell where it was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Mark (1,474 comments) says:

    Why is this a news story? What the juror thinks is completely irrelevant to the process now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. backster (2,144 comments) says:

    “However for the purpose of compensation it is Justice Binnie who will effectively decide, not jurors.”………………..You forgot to add ‘Or Joseph Karam.’………The point of view of the Juror is surely as relevant to the Judge’s deliberations as the fiction written by Joe. The Juror also points out if compelling evidence that was suppressed had been available the verdict may have been different which raises the issue is it also suppressed from Judge Binnie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “I dont think either of those things are normal for a jury to do.”

    True, but not unheard of. Half the jury including some women went to the pub across the road with a man acquitted on a rape charge as he was innocent. The defence lawyer and the man’s family were also there. The defence lawyer is now a judge – Justice David McNaughton.

    There is nothing wrong with it if you are sure the person is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. tristanb (1,126 comments) says:

    There is nothing wrong with it if you are sure the person is innocent.

    Legally there should be, and morally there is.

    It’s a professional relationship, not a personal one. As a juror you are not there to be the defendant’s friend.

    You don’t go drinking with your doctor (unless you are acquainted elsewhere), you don’t go for an (uncharged) dinner with your lawyer, you don’t get into a relationship with your judge.

    The jury is not a place to meet new people and build relationships. You’re there to do a job, not to get laid.

    I realise that often personal details and life experiences are discussed in court, and sometimes that might make you feel more empathy with the defendant or even like you know him really well. But that’s even more reason why you should not enter into a relationship.

    It’s why all those male teachers who meet their “first true love” (a 14 year old girl) should be treated much more harshly that your run-of-the-mill hebephile. And why a psychiatrist will lose his registration if he enters into a relationship with his/her patient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > You’re there to do a job, not to get laid.

    I wasn’t aware that the Bain jurors were looking to get laid. But what happens after a trial is up to the people concerned. However, it may raise questions about their impartiality if they want to socialise with the defendant straight after the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    I think it is a lot more morally wrong to have charged this innocent man in the first place than to have a drink with him.

    Your comparisons are not valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “However, it may raise questions about their impartiality if they want to socialise with the defendant straight after the trial.”

    How could I be anything but impartial? I had never met the guy before the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Chuck

    Did you sit on the jury? It sounds like you did. The fact you call him innocent in spite of the evidence suggests you may not be impartial. Whether you knew his before the trial is not the only factor to consider. There may have been jurors who thought he’d had a raw deal and wanted to put things right…before they heard any of the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “The fact you call him innocent in spite of the evidence ”

    Ross, it is unlawful for me to discuss in detail the case so it could be identified. There were about 6 or 7 jurors including at least 2 women. We found him not guilty because of the defence evidence. In many cases a jury may someone not guilty because the criteria is that they must be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case the defence evidence was so strong that I have no doubt this man was totally innocent and the victim of a malicious complaint

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    Let’s not forget the author of the piece quoted was also the same man warned to ‘stay away’ from the Jury. I’m sceptical about a Juror speaking about ‘new evidence’ after having spoken to mvb. Anyway, the gate is shut on this now as Binnie has pointed out, it’s plain the Justice Department have already considered the letter and decided not to include it with the submissions to Binnie.

    I can see what impact 3 jurors, if it happened, looking at the empty section at 65 Every Street has to do with anything.

    On a slightly different tack the Thomas Jurors went to the Station Hotel with the police after the 1st trial.

    There’s a lot of agitation at the moment, book sites blocking comment from particular groups, review blogs and a Justice site doing the same, as well as these ‘leaks’ of information 2 years old.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    ross69
    11.53

    Speaking of co-incidental ‘releases’ of old ‘new evidence’ I note when you and couple of others happened along and what you’ve exclusively posted about. Your attack on Chuck Bird indicates to me that you are on zealot’s mission and those that don’t believe are the enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    That’s funny coming from you Nostalgia. You’ve shown yourself to be the biggest zealot here on this issue. I wonder what you will say if Binnie, after a long and considered look at the facts, says that David is the likely killer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. lilman (952 comments) says:

    Murdering fuck,lol what an arsehole, he got away with it and now we pay him,who says crime dosent pay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. peterwn (3,239 comments) says:

    Longknives – It would need to be rather serious for a juror to raise a concern during a trial. Possibly there some irregularities which taken together caused concern to the juror after the end of the trial. The Every Street visit (goodness knows why a few jurors wasted a day or two to go to Dunedin) was a definite ‘no no’ but in practice would not have influenced anything. If either the Prosecution or Defence considered a jury visit to Every Street was worth while, the judge would have arranged it.

    The juror’s main concern seems to have been with suppressed evidence which saw the ‘light of day’ after the trial. Perhaps the juror was persuaded to go along with an acquittal on the basis he had already served 13 years jail but regretted doing so after reading about the content of the suppressed evidence and with the talk of compensation. Assuming the juror was minded enough to give a guilty verdict during deliberation, the juror would have been very mindful this would have resulted in a re-trial which probably also have been inconclusive (and effectively let him off the hook). It is only human nature that jurors would act in this way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    ross69
    12.34

    I already know the answer to your question, but I’m not telling you ross. Needless to say, I look forward to due process running its course without the external interference you are fanatically intent upon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. adamsmith1922 (890 comments) says:

    So jurors failed to abide by judicial instructions – no action!

    Jurors go to Bain party no action!

    Juror fails to understand that some ‘evidence’ may not in fact be legal evidence

    This does not make Bain guilty or inncocent, but raises issues/concerns over jury trials

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “Jurors go to Bain party no action!”

    There is no law against it but in the case of Bain I think it was unethical.

    In my case the guy was 100% so that is different.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “I already know the answer to your question…”

    Does it conform to Karam’s version of events?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Spoon (104 comments) says:

    @tristanb

    It’s a professional relationship, not a personal one. As a juror you are not there to be the defendant’s friend.

    You don’t go drinking with your doctor (unless you are acquainted elsewhere), you don’t go for an (uncharged) dinner with your lawyer, you don’t get into a relationship with your judge.

    Why not? I’m a professional and regularly meet clients over coffee. On Wednesday I went out to lunch with one. A professional relationship doesn’t preclude meeting in social settings.

    That said, I do agree it perhaps wasn’t the best look, though if you genuinely believe that you’ve acquitted an innocent man, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “though if you genuinely believe that you’ve acquitted an innocent man, why not?”

    Thanks, I genuinely know the guy was innocent. I am thinking of making a submission on the Justice Review and mentioning that no one should be charged unless there is a prima facie case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    It’s like a school teacher dating students – it’s inappropriate and should be forbidden. There were so many wrongs with the Bain retrial, it should be declared a mistrial, and a new retrial held.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Spoon (104 comments) says:

    The thing with teachers dating students, if they can keep their mitts off each other until they’ve graduated, it’s all good. Where’s the delineation point in this instance? What if they end up in a nursing home with each other in 40 years? Still bad?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    From the second David Bain was found not guilty, his status reverts back to the same as any free person.

    Why shouldn’t a jury, who more than any of us, heard the evidence and were able to observe David Bain up close, be able to celebrate his freedom with him and his team? To question otherwise is then questioning our own freedom to do such things.

    It is all to easy to read and view articles written by journalists whose ethics are dubious, and motives even more so, and to pretend we know it all, when we don’t.

    As a society we put our trust in that jury to deliver the right verdict based on the information they were given. To question their decision, is questioning our own honesty, because they were everday people, just like us.

    Are people here trying to say that if they were on such a jury, they couldn’t be trusted to deliver the right verdict, and they would be influenced by thoughts of a celebratory after party? Are they trying to insinuate that we are all so flakey?
    I hope not.

    Obivously this juror has been got at by a very uneithical Journalist. If the standards and motives of anyone should be in question, it should be this person who appears to breach all levels of privacy to have a go at Karam and Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tristanb (1,126 comments) says:

    The thing with teachers dating students, if they can keep their mitts off each other until they’ve graduated, it’s all good. Where’s the delineation point in this instance?

    No it’s not all good. Or at least it shouldn’t be. It’s legal, sure, but they should be struck off the teacher’s register. They’re abusing their position.

    The issue is with the imbalance in power. Doctors, teachers, lawyers, jurors etc get a lot of very personal information about someone to do their job. This puts them in a privileged position, and also in a powerful position. To go out with someone (even later) then that abusing your position.

    The Medical Council is apparently quite strict about this:
    http://www.mcnz.org.nz/portals/0/Publications/Importance%20of%20boundaries%20FA.pdf
    “The Council has a zero-tolerance position on doctors who breach sexual boundaries with a current patient. In the Council’s view it is also wrong for a doctor to enter into a relationship with a former patient or a close relative of a patient if this breaches the trust the patient placed in the doctor.”

    Now, there’s nothing wrong with an architect having coffee with a client – or even entering into a relationship. In these situations there is not really a power imbalance, either party can end the business and there’s not a lot of overly personal information being shared.

    Jurors are different. They’re often hearing many sordid and personal details of someone’s life, almost in a voyeuristic manner. For one, they’re abusing their position when they enter into a relationship with a victim or defendant.

    But as well as the professionalism aspect, there’s also the impartiality we want in our justice system.

    E.g Chuck Bird, you might have quite like the guy who was accused of rape, thought he was a decent guy who was being spitefully charged; I’m sure you decided this from the evidence. But there’s the possibility for someone to think, hey, those jurors have gone for a drink with that accused rapist – they were never a fair jury.

    I’m sure David Bain’s jury picked a whole lot of sappy idiots and fat girls who tend to sympathise with Bain. But I would never have known this unless the jurors went hugging him afterwards – now I think they were hand-picked and prejudiced idiots – and I have some evidence that they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Keeping Stock (10,273 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird said

    Thanks, I genuinely know the guy was innocent. I am thinking of making a submission on the Justice Review and mentioning that no one should be charged unless there is a prima facie case.

    Chuck; I thought you would have been aware that where a jury trial is elected, the prosecution DOES have to establish a prima-facie case against a defendant before the case goes to trial; that’s what depositions hearings are for. And the police are very loath to prosecute for a crime like rape without corroboration of the allegation, either by witness evidence or by forensics, for the very reasons you talk about.

    Are you still 100% convinced about Chummy’s innocence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. tristanb (1,126 comments) says:

    Why shouldn’t a jury, who more than any of us, heard the evidence and were able to observe David Bain up close, be able to celebrate his freedom with him and his team? To question otherwise is then questioning our own freedom to do such things.

    Just as we’re not free to have sex with an intellectually handicapped person we look after, we don’t need jurors to have the freedom to cavort with the other people in the courtroom.

    Why can’t a jury celebrate his freedom?
    1. Because that’s not what they’re meant to do.
    2. Because it calls into question the legitimacy of the entire trial and justice system.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    “ross69 (24) Says:

    February 24th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
    That’s funny coming from you Nostalgia. You’ve shown yourself to be the biggest zealot here on this issue. I wonder what you will say if Binnie, after a long and considered look at the facts, says that David is the likely killer.” – end quote

    Justice Binnie has not been asked to state whether David Bain is the killer or not, just to examine whether there is sufficient evidence to prove himself innocent of the crime, based on the balance of probabilites, OR, and let’s not forget this bit, that he is prevented from doing that due to the actions of the Crown and Police, in the manner they conducted their investigation.

    Even if only 5% of what is produced regarding the police mismanagement of the case is true, then I would say David Bain will get his compensation. Will you be prepared to accept that someone who has seen all the evidence is able to make that decision, or will you still claim it’s wrong, because I note when one of the jurors on here, who has seen all the evidence, says David is innocent, he gets rubbished for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Put it away (2,878 comments) says:

    Did these three jurors go to Dunedin together or separately? One of the things you’re told not to do on a jury is discuss the case when any less than the full twelve are present. If three went off on a trip and talked about the case in the absence of the others, that is a serious breach.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Tristanb

    There is an awfully big leap from having sex with a person in your care, and having a celebratory drink with a free person after a very long trial. Especially a person who lost their family in tragic circumstances and was accused, convicted and jailed for something they didn’t do.

    Try to put aside your feelings of whether he was guilty or not, and look at the differences in your examples. They don’t even compare. There are no rules that the jury cannot socialise after a trial, for very good reasons, and that is because if found not guilty, there can be no limitations on the ex-defendant. If it becomes a moral judgment, who is to say you are right or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Put it away (2,373) Says:

    February 24th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
    Did these three jurors go to Dunedin together or separately? One of the things you’re told not to do on a jury is discuss the case when any less than the full twelve are present. If three went off on a trip and talked about the case in the absence of the others, that is a serious breach. – end quote

    It can’t be proven they even went. It was a long trial, and I don’t believe anyone would make the big trip from Christcurch to Dunedin. The house was not there anymore and they had been shown plenty of photos, measurement of roads etc, what could they hope to gain by making that trip. There is no way to prove what the jounalist wrote because contact with the jury is not allowed. He knows that, he’s been requested to stop harassing jurors before. Therefore, I would suggested people view his ‘word’ very objectively. Especially as he has sat on this knowledge for two years apparently, and is only now talking about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Scott Chris (6,044 comments) says:

    A jury has a sworn legal obligation to render an impartial verdict. They must not allow their emotions to intrude upon their impartiality.

    Some members of the jury in the Bain case plainly failed to uphold their duty or to fulfill their oaths, but personally I don’t blame them. They were out of their depth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    My two cents worth:

    The letter has no bearing on the issue of compensation. It is quite rightly excluded from the documents sent to the judge. Karam is, I understand, acting as Bain’s advocate in presenting the claim for compensation. Presenting his books to Justice Binnie will be a double edge sword. The flaws in his logic will be just as evident as any compelling points.

    I find it social interaction between a juror and an accused to be inappropriate for no reason other than it suggests a lack of objectivity. In the case such as this, where there is clearly a public divide, any suggestion that jurors were in one camp or another must be avoided. That duty is owed by the jurors not only to the accused but also to everyone else. I doubt that their conduct went down well with the Bain relatives.

    It is ironic that the juror complains that they did not get to see evidence ruled inadmissible (i.e. evidence suppressed by the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court) and yet, at the same time, asserts that other jurors misbehaved by going beyond the evidence produced in the trial and inspecting Every Street.

    Like Pete George says, they would have gained nothing by inspecting the site. However, I think it is the principle that counts. They would have been warned against making their own enquiries. If, as is suggested, they did go to Dunedin to inspect, did they stop there? What other enquiries today make? Did they ask anybody any questions? We do not know any of this.

    The complaining juror may have raised further issues in his letter. The complaint may be a complete waste of time or it may be evidence of wholly unsatisfactory behaviour by some members of the jury.

    I do not consider these revelations to be compelling evidence that the jury system needs to be changed. We have had very few trials which are as intensely scrutinised as this one. I would like to think that the government will review the use of the media to influence perceptions. Candidly, some of the conduct of the defence was simply a media circus calculated to curry favour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    Scott Chris
    4.03

    ‘Out of their depth.’

    Similar to Michael Laws today explaining why the blood on Robin’s hands wasn’t tested ‘because the police knew who did it.’ Perhaps that is why they chose to use their own photographs of his palms because the pathologists photos showed the smears.

    Maybe we should have trials where the OIC is the only one that needs to give evidence, he can simply say ‘I know he did it, and if the jury don’t agree they’ll be out of their depth.’

    I wonder if the preparatory stalking of Justice Binnie is being practised at this point.

    Ah for a Peter Mahon mind type inquiry. I imagine that is what Binnie will produce.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/13001198/bain-juror-may-be-in-contempt-of-court/

    Something from Bill Hodge.

    From another perspective it would be interesting to know from the juror if the particular reporter offered in any advice in writing his letter or supplied any information contained in it.

    Any proof of the 3 jurors going to Every Street emerging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “Are you still 100% convinced about Chummy’s innocence?”

    Yes, what you say is correct in theory but the defence evidence made it clear the vindictive bitch was lying under oath.

    I was so pissed off after the trial I rang the police prosecutor up and asked why the case went to trial. He said it was their policy to let a jury decide if the complainant stuck to her story and it was consistent. I then asked why she was not charged with perjury and he responded that it would deter genuine complainants. He did not say their was not enough evidence to prosecute her. I suspect the police policy at least in that area was due to some type of political interference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    I wonder what the lawyers on this blog think of another lawyer as in the trial I was on going to the pub with his client and jurors to the pub after a not guilty verdict if he is certain his client is innocent?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Dexter (288 comments) says:

    “will you be prepared to accept that someone who has seen all the evidence is able to make that decision, or will you still claim it’s wrong,”

    The last person to conduct a through and completely independent reviewed all the evidence was Sir Thomas Thorpe, and you don’t get much more authoritative opinions than that.

    I’d suggest that before anyone make a fool out of themselves and claim Binnie will do a ‘Mahon’ that they might first want to read the Thorpe report….and weep.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Jury misconduct, if known, would have resulted in a mistrial.
    http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/Auckland/player/ondemand/798057730-Bain-juror-close-to-misconduct

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    “Justice Binnie has not been asked to state whether David Bain is the killer or not…”

    Jinny, you are playing games. Binnie has been asked to look into the issue of compensation for Daivd. Clearly, if Binnie thinks that David killed his family, he won’t be getting a brass razoo. Have a read of the decision in the Rex Haig case. Haig claimed compensation after his conviction was quashed. However, the judge appointed to hear his compensation claim said that there was a real possibility that Haig had committed murder and was not eligible for compo.

    I’m not sure of your other point about a juror supposedly claiming that David is innocent. We have a letter written to the former Justice Minister from a juror who sat on Bain’s re-trial saying that Bain shouldn’t receive any compo. The juror seems annoyed that evidence was suppressed, evidence that may have caused the juror to return a guilty verdict. We also have Martin van Veynen, who sat through Bain’s retrial, saying that Bain likely committed the murders. Why do you ignore these views?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    ross69
    2.34

    Who is the ‘we’ you’re referring to in terms of having a copy of that juror’s letter?
    And what were the circumstances of it coming into your hands, or who ever the ‘we’ are?
    Your reply would be appreciated.

    BTW I suggest you read Rex Haig compensation decision again yourself, from memory you’ve got that decision wrong.
    I thought the finding was that it couldn’t be excluded that he was involved, but your information is probably more reliable than my memory.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    My recollection of the Haig compensation decision is that the QC found it more probable than not that Haig had something to do with the murder. I have not yet tracked down the actual report but the linked press announcement substantiates that view. I also recall that the QC was particularly critical of the fact that Haig chose not to say anything in circumstances where he clearly had some knowledge of what had happened.

    http://beehive.govt.nz/release/rex-haig-compensation-application-declined

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    Another report on the Haig decision.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10557647

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. big bruv (13,689 comments) says:

    Nostalgia.

    I am going to assume that you are stubborn rather than stupid (to be fair I get the impression you are quite a smart chap)

    I also assume that you just cannot allow yourself to ever look at the issue from the other side, so, keeping that in mind are you one who thinks that David Bain is worthy of a tax payer funded pay out or are you one who thinks that his freedom is enough?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Call me an old sentimental sort of a fellow if you wish but I somehow feel all these problems would be irrelevant if we had kept capital punishment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Swampy (191 comments) says:

    At least the standard for compo is much higher than being acquitted, old Karam keeps stirring the pot with his new book.

    I don’t particularly know whether Bain was innocent or guilty but having got his freedom it is about time for him to quit NZ and Karam to stop cheerleading for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Nostalgia @3.06pm

    The “we” is the public. I don’t know the relevance of your comment about the juror’s letter which isn’t in my hands but is in the hands of the media. I presume the juror gave the letter to the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Swampy (191 comments) says:

    Here’s one for fence sitters. If you think Bain is guilty, he at least served 13 years and probably won’t get compo. If you think he is innocent, he at least is free now, without a criminal conviction.

    Whether he has a criminal record now and is free, or not, doesn’t make a blind bit of difference to most of us, including his extended family who are not changing their view, and who knew him a lot better than a carefully orchestrated defence case would portray.

    The best thing that could happen now is for Bain to bugger off overseas and Karam and his defence lawyer to crawl back into the woodwork and the rest of us to get on with things.

    One of the things that helped Bain at the second trial is undoubtedly a far stronger defence case, which really does call into question the standard of his original lawyer, a man who I believe was subsequently censured for professional misconduct in a different scenario.

    Being acquitted does not mean a person is innocent, it just means the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been achieved. Requiring proof of innocence for compo is a far higher standard and I seriously doubt it will be achieved in this case. I wonder if the Judge has access to all of the evidence and is not bound by the suppression orders that applied during the trial.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Jolly good stuff Swampy. A quick hanging after the first trial would have saved us, the long suffering taxpayer, not only a lot of cash but also the everlasting pain of having a twat like Karam raised to celebrity status.

    It would also have done wonders for manufacture of home knit jumpers. Most of the old ladies I know stopped doing them the moment they clapped eyes on the weird one. Tainted by association they said. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    ross69 (26) Says:

    February 25th, 2012 at 2:34 pm

    You keep referring to WE, who is the WE you represent and why would a juror send you a letter? How would the juror know who you are? The day we start listening to journos like Van Beynen we may as well give up and die. You do realise the media are not an official source of information don’t you ? Van Beynen, like that group claiming to represent Robin Bain, however only seem interested in taking down Joe Karam, have as many ethics as a cat on heat.

    I notice you like to excuse the BOP and extenuating circumstances, sorry but they are part of such a decision, or did you not get that from your reliable source – the media.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Are you Joe’s current squeeze Jinny? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Elaycee (4,356 comments) says:

    “The day we start listening to journos like Van Beynen we may as well give up and die.”

    Bwahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    From the sock puppets who believe the version of events perpetuated by fiction written Karam, is somehow the real deal.

    Jesus wept.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    I see Rosco, has stated the WE is the public.

    How and when did the public give you permission to speak on their behalf? I’m a member of that public and your views certainly do not represent me?

    How did you measure this representation?

    Here’s some figures for you, the JFRB group has 592 members, however some of them have multiple facebook names. Counterspin group, which are also JFRB members has about 22 active members. In the past three months, only 13 different people have posted on JFRB, not representative of the ‘public’ at all.
    The petition started by Counterspin has got 2015 names in over a year. There are at least 30 names on that petition that appear at least 2 or 3 times. There are also people whose names have been added that when approached did not sign it.

    Are you a member or representative of any of the two groups mentioned, and if so, how do you conclude you represent the New Zealand public from such poor numbers?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Jeeze if we had hung the prick after the first trial all of this shit wouldn’t be happening!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Elaycee (2,217) Says:

    February 25th, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Oh LOOK, let’s grab our pitch forks and rope, and mossey on down to the barn!

    So you are a member of the ‘group’.
    They have the same MO. Attack the person, tie them to Joe Karam, and prevent them from talking about the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Nice little earner for the Karam family so far.

    “Karam is known for his strong support of David Bain.[4] He helped fund Bain’s appeals against his convictions for the murder of the five members of his immediate family, including his successful Privy Council appeal in 2007. Bain was required to stay with Karam during his bail period and on 5 June 2009 was acquitted on all charges at his retrial for the murders. His strong support and the financial burden that had to follow was highly influential in the eventual and emmenent freedom achieved by Bain’s defence team, Matthew Karam, Helen Cull (QC), Paul Morton, and leading defence lawyer (QC) Michael Reid. In the nearly two years between the quashing of Bain’s convictions and the retrial, Karam worked as a researcher and investigator for Bain’s legal team, being paid $75 an hour initially and then $95 an hour, and billing 70 to 80 hours a week, adding up to $330,000 from legal aid money from a fund paid by taxpayers. His son, Matthew, was also being paid $120 an hour.[5] It is “revealed in his 1996 book David and Goliath that he and Bain had agreed they would share profits from the rights to any books, magazine articles “and the like”.” “If that deal still stands, that means a cut for Karam from any future books Bain may write, any possible movie rights and interview deals. Karam last week refused to comment on the status of the arrangement when asked by the Sunday Star-Times if there were any deals in the offing. But a book publisher and the magazines have been calling.”[6]”

    Where do you fit in there Jinny? Squeeze? Daughter in law? Whatever? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Bit reticent is Jinny. Draw your own conclusions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    Jinny
    I don’t think Ross69 is necessarily purporting to speak on behalf of the public when he advances his cause. He is simply recording the existence of fact (ie the letter and the journo) which WE (the public) have and then draws his own conclusions from those facts. As in “WE have a divergence of opinion here” (and I do purport to represent the public when I say that). Oh, and this is not a numbers game.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > I’m a member of that public and your views certainly do not represent me?

    My views? I was stating facts. Obviously you don’t like the facts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Jinny seems to have fucked off.

    Must be din dins at the Karam household? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Irish stew soaked up with Lebanese bread all washed down with 1787 Chateau Lafite! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nookin (3,274 comments) says:

    She has certainly fucked off Ross 69, Johnboy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Elaycee (4,356 comments) says:

    @Jinny: “Oh LOOK, let’s grab our pitch forks and rope, and mossey on down to the barn!”

    Whaaaaat? Who was the complete moron who said that? Oh oh, you did, Jinny….. gee, that must have taken a big effort.

    Not sure about your use of the word ‘mossey’ – perhaps you mean ‘mosey’ [mo·sey/ˈmōzē/ Verb: Walk or move in a leisurely manner]. So comprehension not your strong point either?

    What a coincidence – Nostalgia has the same malaise. Do you share the same ISP address?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “Being acquitted does not mean a person is innocent, it just means the standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” has not been achieved.”

    Yes. Yes. Yes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Ah mossey Elaycee.

    Comes from the Lebanese word ‘moz’ meaning ‘banana’.

    Jinny just can’t spell her new friends language yet.

    Give her a chance. She is obviously away learning it at the moment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Chuck Bird (4,836 comments) says:

    “Jeeze if we had hung the prick after the first trial all of this shit wouldn’t be happening!”

    JB. What about Thomas?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Johnboy (15,903 comments) says:

    Would have saved $900,000 and the death by boredom of all his neighbours in Pauanui. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Elaycee (4,356 comments) says:

    “Give her a chance. She is obviously away learning it at the moment.”

    Fair enough, Johnboy. Maybe she’s having a group hug with Nostalgia.

    At Joe’s Diner. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    ross
    4.47

    Sure.
    van beynan, letter, juror, and ‘we’ all in one post.
    I think I can hear tap leaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Nostalgia

    I stated facts. Stop being a dick. You’ve obviously got nothing better to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nostalgia-NZ (5,101 comments) says:

    ross69

    ‘we have’ means possession. So the ‘we’ is the public and also the media according to your ‘corrected,’ if belated 2nd effort, but not you and somebody else for example who you’ve already named, in fact praised as some kine of authority?
    I don’t have a copy of it, so who does. Which media?
    Bloody tap is still leaking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Maggie (672 comments) says:

    Bain deserves coompensation because he was convicted of a crime he didn’t commit. Some idiots here think they know better, which only demonstrates what morons they are.

    Why is this taking so long?

    [DPF: A court has not said he did not commit the crime. They have said he was not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

    To gain compensation a QC assesses the case and advises whether or not he is innocent on the balance of probabilities. If the advice is he is, then he gets compensation.

    This is not a difficult concept to understand]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Maggie,

    You were obviously there at the time the crimes were committed. Tell us what you saw.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. big bruv (13,689 comments) says:

    Maggie

    Have you looked at both sides of the argument or are you as stupid as your comment would suggest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Maggie

    you know bain is “innocent” because …. YOU murdered the bains ?? you need to do more than simply confess to be convincing. what was your motive? did you hate the bains more than david? why did you have david type that stupid note?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    Interesting book review here http://content.radionetwork.co.nz/weekondemand/auckland/71130.mp3 at 12:50

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. hiphip (92 comments) says:

    it appears unfair tamihere gets 10 years per victim and bain gets only 2.5 years per victim. no wonder david thanked the first judge for being very “fair” to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    ross: Your sad worn out rhetoric is pathetic. You can’t argue the points so you resort to the argument that if someone wasn’t there, they can’t have an opinion or know anything about the case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Great book review:

    http://www.critic.co.nz/culture/article/1566/karam-kazam

    “Karam’s systematic thrashing of the prosecution’s case against David Bain was convincing, not because of the destruction of one or two aspects of the prosecution’s evidence, but the obliteration of every one of the CIB’s theories prescribed to the evidence collected. Karam’s harsh treatment of the CIB is probably fair, considering how he presents the miscarriage of justice against Bain. Yet that is just it: no matter what packaging Karam chose to put his knowledge of the case in, no matter how many facts, truths and bricks of evidence thrown to the skeptic, there will always be the argument that “Joe Karam wrote it, so objectivity is impossible.” Time to look in the mirror. “

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    Don’t you just love the wasy people that support Robin Bain immediately jump on Maggie.

    Rather than asking them why they have the stance they do, or encouraging them to take part in discussion, they immediately feel they must jump down their throats and shut them up before they utter anything else.

    What is it that Robin Bain’s supporters are scared of?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Excellent book review:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/6440132/Bain-defence-still-less-than-convincing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Don’t you just love the wasy people that support Robin Bain immediately jump on Maggie.

    I don’t support Robin but I do support justice. The difference might be too subtle for you to understand.

    Maggie gave the impression she was at the scene of the crime. It doesn’t appear she was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    http://www.nzcriminallaw.blogspot.co.nz/

    Saturday, February 18, 2012
    Book review: “Trial by Ambush” by Joe Karam
    No objective reader of Joe Karam’s “Trial by Ambush” can possibly come to any conclusion other than that Robin Bain committed the murders of his family. It is equally obvious that David Bain must receive compensation for his years of imprisonment which were a direct result of improprieties in the investigation and failures by the authorities including the judiciary to provide a timely remedy.

    It is the failings of the judiciary that are of most concern to readers of this site. Three appeal judges sat on what the Privy Council called the Third Court of Appeal in this case. Their single judgment contained, according to submissions to the Privy Council prepared by Karam and reproduced as Appendix B to his book, an astonishingly large list of errors of fact.

    One judge might well make the occasional slip in summarising the evidence in a case, but how can so many errors pass by three judges? This calls into question the soundness of a recent proposal by our Law Commission that factual issues should be decided by a small panel of judges. The Commission likens this to the practice in Belgium, but China would also be a relevant point of reference.

    Work done by committees tends to be distributed among members, whereas in trials it is brought home to jurors that they are individually responsible for their decision. The Court of Appeal is over-worked and under-resourced, and its judges – all of whom are of high quality by international standards – are encouraged to bring in unanimous decisions in criminal cases. That is hardly an environment that will promote accuracy.

    But the errors in the Bain case began much earlier, according to Karam’s book. The police decided too quickly to charge David. They then sought evidence against him rather than being open to the alternative that Robin was the murderer. They failed to preserve, record or have analysed evidence that might have supported David’s innocence, and at an astonishingly early stage after the first trial they destroyed evidence. Evidence that was disclosed to the defence before both trials was dumped on the defence in huge volume and in a disordered state, without indication of what was significant.

    This is the second aspect that is of interest here: how can the prosecution be required to exercise its disclosure obligations fairly? In the adversarial system, where the trial is a contest with a winner and a loser, procedural fairness can be sacrificed for the sake of egotistical stratagems. Trials and appeals become contests between counsel, and between counsel and the bench, to see who is cleverest.

    If you think Robin’s full bladder eliminated him as a suspect, you won’t think so after reading this book. Nor will you think that David turned on the computer. Nor that David put the washing on before going on his paper run. Nor that all victims except Robin were killed before David left on his paper run. You will be convinced that Robin left bloodstained footprints in the carpet as he shot the victims – David’s feet were too big to have made them. Blood on Robin’s hands (not available for analysis, but visible in tardily disclosed photographs) was consistent with coming partly from the bloody gloves he wore, and partly from splash-back from a victim as he held the rifle. Blood on Robin’s trousers and on his shoes was consistent with his position as he pulled the trigger committing suicide, as was blood on the curtain by the computer. Robin was the psychological mess, not David. Robin fitted the profile of men who kill their families, and David didn’t. The gurgling heard by David coming from one victim was of the kind that can occur after death, and the evidence of that possibility was stronger at the second trial than it had been at the first.

    According to this book, there is no reliable evidence that David was the murderer. At one stage I thought that Karam’s account of a green towel containing traces of Robin’s blood and found in the laundry left open the possibility that David put it there after killing Robin. But Robin had an injury to his hand that would have bled, and that was probably sustained in the course of a fight with his younger son who had not been killed by the first shot Robin fired at him. Robin probably wiped blood from that wound on to the towel and left it in the laundry with his other blood soaked clothes, for David to put in the wash after his paper route.

    It is so hugely unlikely that David was the murderer that, as Karam says, anyone suggesting the contrary had better put up compelling evidence. There is none. It would have to be as incontrovertible as a freely given confession by David, or a reliable eyewitness to the killings, or a video recording of them. If evidence of that kind had been obtained the case would not be one of inferences, or probabilities, but one of certainties. As it is, the probabilities are so enormously in favour of David’s innocence that they amount to a certainty.

    The community must be thankful for people like Joe Karam. We all are entitled to know that if the State makes an error and wrongly punishes us, we will be properly compensated. Unfortunately it is not always the State’s own officials who can be relied on to provide that assurance.

    posted by Don Mathias at 3:37 PM

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Jinny (306 comments) says:

    ROSS says – I don’t support Robin but I do support justice. The difference might be too subtle for you to understand.

    Maggie gave the impression she was at the scene of the crime. It doesn’t appear she was.”

    Where did she say that? How do you know Maggie isn’t privy to some factual evidence you don’t know about that proves her claim? . The fact is he is innocent. We are all innocent, until proven guilty, by law. David’s guilty verdict was overturned, and he was found not guilty, which means he reverts to the same status as everyone else. He is innocent.

    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.