Binnie responds

December 12th, 2012 at 9:05 am by David Farrar

Ian Binnie has responded to the statement from about concerns with his report. What strikes me as fascinating is how passionately pro-Bain he is. He complains that has not yet been given a copy of his report, for example.

He also cites the Privy Council judgement at length, but of course that was a decision there were grounds for a retrial. That was not a decision that on balance of probabilities Robin Bain was the killer.

A commenter makes the point:

Binnies statement, reproduced above, is the best evidence so far supporting Judith Collins stance. In it, he quite clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the facts.

In paragraph 4 he states that the decision of the Privy Council that there had been a miscarriage of justice was reinforced by the verdict in the 2009 retrial. I am astounded that he would make such a statement.

The acquittal did not reinforce the conclusion of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was at pains to say that it did not have an opinion as to whether Bain was guilty or not. In NZ, the term miscarriage of justice refers to the process, not the outcome. You can have a trial which is found to have been a miscarriage of justice, but which still reaches the right result.

Binnie has demonstrated in his statement that he does not understand the meaning of the term miscarriage of justice, nor doe he understand the PC decision. He has also demonstrated a failure to understand the 2009 jury’s verdict. His statement quite clearly demonstrates a belief that the not guilty verdict equates to a finding of innocence.

Then in paragraph 5 he states that “all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt”. Again a mistake that goes to the very heart of his integrity.

The PC made no judgement on David Bain’s guilt. Their judgement states “In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial”

Collins doesn’t have to release the report now. Binnie, by his own statements, has vindicated everything she has said about the report.

Another commenter (who is a lawyer) also says:

I have read Binnie’s statement which shows a scary misapprehension of events. The PC did not make any comment about guilt or innocence. It refused to go into that arena. It dealt with admissibility of evidence. The jury did not find him innocent. It found that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyound reasonable doubt. I gather that he refused to hear from one of the jurors who expressed concern about jury misconduct. He cannot do that and, in the same breath, conclude that the jury found him innocent. I have no wonder why Collins is getting a second opinion.

Also worth reading this post by Andrew Geddis at Pundit.

Tags: , ,

255 Responses to “Binnie responds”

  1. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    Bonkers.

    The man thinks this is the most likely scenario??
    http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/the-confession-of-robin-bain

    Absolutely fucking bonkers….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    What strikes me as fascinating is how passionately pro-Bain he is.

    Good God DPF. Really?

    You would have to be a pretty faithful believer of the religion of I’ve got it all figured out and I KNOW David did it to see anything as blasphemous as “passionately pro-Bain” views in that e mail.

    Judith “I’m gonna crush cars y0″ Collins has publicly said there are all sorts of things wrong with the report, but won’t say what, so she is basically shooting barbs at Binnie and his work from behind a high fortified wall. Under those circumstances his e mail shows the kind of restraint I would expect from a Supreme Court Judge…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. somewhatthoughtful (467 comments) says:

    Have you read the report to make your conclusion that he’s “pro Bain”? Didn’t think so, nice dog whistle though, should get the SST brigade nice and riled up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    I am deeply uncomfortable with the level of political interference here.
    The one sided release of information by Collins needs to stop, now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Gosman (324 comments) says:

    Even if we accept that Judge Binnie’s report may be fundamentally flawed, (which is highly probable in my view), the fact remains that the Government has got itself in to this mess by agreeing to have the Judge look into this case in the first place. It is not a good look now to try and discredit the man simply because you think his findings are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    Who chose Binnie in the firtst place?
    It seems another stuff-up from an increasingly incompetent government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    David, you are behaving like Don Quixote…. tilting at windmills.
    This NOT personal to you. It also applies to all the trenchant critics of Bain.
    I heard Binnie’s interview with Hosking (in full) and was struck by his plea for natural justice.
    Points: (Some paraphrased)
    Heron, the Solicitor General appeared in front of me [Binnie] arguing that Bain should NOT get compensation.
    Heron has been given a copy of the report.
    Bain has NOT had/seen a copy. (Binnie also said Bain may well disagree with him on several matters. Hardly a passionate endorsement, no?)
    That is WRONG! Need I say that again?
    Binnie was quite dispassionate on the whole issue, noting that he had retained a top NZ legal-eagle to review his report and to ensure that he had NOT misunderstood NZ law.
    Binnie also said that overseas judiciary viewed it differently from the NZ folk. (Too worried over how they will be viewed by the Northern, Wellington, and Canterbury Clubs?)
    Binnie noted that the Privy Council had identified eight (I repeat, 8) substantive grounds on which Bain was subject to a miscarriage of justice. None of those grounds, Binnie said, were technical.
    Whatever the rights or wrongs, it does appear that sleuths such as F.E.Smith and Nostalgia are right. The MoJ, Crown Law and the NZ justice system, including police, may have been caned by Binnie. That is the reach rear-guard action now being fought.
    There is much, much more and it (the whole) does neither Collins nor the Government any good.
    Collins should fess up. Heron should seriously consider his position. It appears untenable on this issue. Not a good start for the eldest son of an outstanding (late) Judge, Dick Heron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. coolas (115 comments) says:

    You’re exposing your prejudice on this issue David

    “passionately pro-Bain” – the statement doesn’t read that way unless you’re “passionately anti-Bain”

    “He also cites the Privy Council judgement at length” – one paragraph of 14 by way of background

    And you don’t make the major point of all. Why hasn’t Bain been given a copy of the Binnie report? After all he’s the most affected party.

    Have you done some polling on this on behalf of the Govt which shows National voters are opposed to compensation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    Let us remember that so far Binnie has produced THREE reports, unheard of for a judge. What was wrong with his first two that he felt he had to keep on reporting? I have never heard of this happening before!

    For those who complain of political interference, this is totally a political decision. There is no legal obligation to pay Bain anything. If the Crown decides to give him some taxpayer funds then that is entirely up to the Government. And they will need more than three reports from a Canadian judge to satisfy the public.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Brian Harmer (687 comments) says:

    Having read Justice Binnie’s release carefully, I see no pro-Bain bias at all, just a concern from a distinguished jurist that the process now evolving is a very shoddy one. I think Michael Reed QC was pretty accurate in his comments last evening about the fundamental lack of justice in now invoking some new one-sided process to which the person most affected has no access.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Let us remember that so far Binnie has produced THREE reports, unheard of for a judge. What was wrong with his first two that he felt he had to keep on reporting? I have never heard of this happening before!

    Read Binnie’s e mail on the Herald site again BeaB, your answer is in there. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Brian Harmer (687 comments) says:

    BeaB … read what Justice Binnie said about those amendments. It is scarcely three reports .. he apparently made minor clarificatory amendments to address concers raised by the minister

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kea (13,295 comments) says:

    It is not a good look now to try and discredit the man simply because you think his findings are wrong.

    I can think of no more appropriate way to descredit him than on the flaws contained in his report. Do you have another suggestion ?

    He was employed to do a job. His employer is not happy with his work. We have not seen his work, but Collins has. She can make what she likes of it, same as if she employed a plumber rather than an activist social engineering Judge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    “I am deeply uncomfortable with the level of political interference here.” as freakin Annette King said on ZB this morning, it is a political decision…

    I really enjoyed the 10 mins of hosking discussing this with joyce and king. riveting radio. I was trying to figure out who hosking is more in love with, bain or obama.

    I think most of us followed the trial quite closely. from what i read theres no way he could be found INNOCENT. like 100% innocent. theres just no way. I personally thought he was guilty as sin. the defense threw up one or two curve balls that had me thinking. wasn’t enough to tip Juror Dime to find reasonable doubt.

    the report will be interesting. who cares if its another month before we get a decision. the dude should be happy hes free.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Who to believe?

    A respected jurist who attended some of the world’s finest universities and who sat on a Supreme Court of a G8 member, or Judith Collins (a former tax lawyer who attended one of our crappy universities).

    The lesson here is clear. New Zealanders hiring overseas experts with real credentials will have to bank on those experts agreeing with them, or we’ll just end up looking like the near third world rubes that we really are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    Longknives – great link!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Dime –

    Of course it’s a political issue, but the way the Minister of Justice is behaving is fast killing any faith I have in her to competently oversee the Justice System in this country.

    (And she was already looking a bit undersized for the job, after her core policy [crushing cars, what a joke] fizzled and then that farce where she sued two opposition MPs for making a few shitty comments about her.)

    She should make the report public immediately.

    Otherwise it starts to look like if you are a citizen of New Zealand and the National Minister of Justice decides you’re guilty of some crime, then no amount of judicial review is going to change her highnesses’ mind. That should scare anyone who cares about these institutions we have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    There is a blog on counterspin.co.nz headed “The Bain Killings.Whodunnit?” It was wriiten by a member of the public who has spent hundreds if not thousands of hours researching the case. In fact you could say it has been his hobby over the past three years or so. Might be worth a look.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Who to believe?

    A respected jurist who attended some of the world’s finest universities and who sat on a Supreme Court of a G8 member, or Judith Collins (a former tax lawyer who attended one of our crappy universities).

    I’d go for Judith. She’s not an activist judge with a history of minority dissent in criminal cases.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    Whatever the rights or wrongs, it does appear that sleuths such as F.E.Smith and Nostalgia are right. The MoJ, Crown Law and the NZ justice system, including police, may have been caned by Binnie. That is the reach rear-guard action now being fought.

    This is my guess. Why they can’t just man up and say they got this one wrong is beyond me. Our justice system works very well, but it is nonsensical to pretend it is, or expect it to be, perfect.

    After all, respect for justice in New Zealand was in the end strengthened, and not weakened, by the eventual outcome of Thomas case.

    I have no idea whether David Bain murdered his family. I do know that the police screwed the case up. We can’t have that in New Zealand. These cases are few and far between. I can only think of the Thomas, Watson and Bain cases offhand (and the Watson case was worse than the others).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    I’d go for Judith. She’s not an activist judge with a history of minority dissent in criminal cases.

    Of course, politicians would never engage in activism to suit an agenda.

    Are you a sponsored cretin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Justice Ian Binnie’s full statement

    Wednesday, 12 December 2012
    I have just received a copy of the press release dated 11 December from the Minister’s office plus numerous e-mail media inquiries. As I am presently in Geneva at a meeting of the International Commission of Jurists, the time difference between Switzerland and New Zealand, (as well as the logistics of responding to the number of different journalists who have made contact), make it more efficient to answer your inquiries collectively rather than individually. I have not discussed the Bain matter with the media since my appointment in November 2011 (apart from an early letter to a newspaper about a patently absurd reporter’s comment) but the Minister’s press release requires a response. This e-mail is copied to the Minister’s office, as well as to the parties to the “compo inquiry”

    1. No, I was not forewarned that the Minister intended to issue the press release and had no advance notice of its contents.

    2. The press release refers to “robustness of reasoning” which seems to be code for “reasoning” that supports the Minister’s preferred disposition of the Bain claim.

    3. The language of the press release shows it to be a political document which, given that the Minister is engaged in a political exercise, is not surprising. David Bain is seeking a discretionary payment from Cabinet and Cabinet is a political body that makes political decisions. However I expected the Minister to follow a fair and even handed process leading up to that political decision. She is, after all, the Minister of Justice. The purpose of this email is to give people the facts to enable them to determine for themselves whether or not the process has been even-handed.

    4. The press release states that my Report was referred to the Solicitor General for “advice”. This makes it sound as though the Solicitor General is some sort of independent official whereas, in fact, his office attempted for almost 17 years to uphold a conviction of David Bain that New Zealand’s highest appeal Court decided in 2007 was a miscarriage of justice — a conclusion reinforced by Mr Bain’s acquittal by a Christchurch jury in 2009. The Solicitor General was and remains part of the prosecutorial team. The opposing parties in the compensation inquiry were David Bain and the Crown Law Office. At a January 2012 meeting held at the Ministry of Justice for me to obtain the views of the Crown Law Office as to how the inquiry should proceed (a similar meeting was held with the Bain people) I was introduced to the then Solicitor General, David Collins, who had unsuccessfully argued the case against David Bain before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. He was not, and did not pretend to be, independent. For present purposes the Solicitor General is equivalent to the Crown Law Office.

    5. It is a curious feature of this case that all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt. By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2003 that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. In that appeal, too, David Bain’s arguments were dismissed by the Solicitor General as based on incorrect facts and a misapprehension of New Zealand law. The Privy Council judgment was authored by Lord Thomas Bingham, generally regarded as one of the brightest and best judges produced by the common law world since the Second World War. In a much more modest capacity, as a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, I too have expressed views on the respective merits of the case of Mr Bain and the Crown. People are free to disagree with my views (as they are free to disagree with the views of the Privy Council and the 2009 Christchurch jury), but it is no disrespect to the able Hon Robert Fisher QC to note that the Minister is keen to repatriate the Bain case to her home turf.

    6. The press release does not state whether my Report has also been given to the police, but I gather that it was, and in any event the mandate of the Crown Law Office, as well as the Solicitor General, has been to speak up for the police in this case, and it is understood that they will continue to do so. This is all very well except that the only interested party who has so far been denied a look at my report is the party most directly affected, namely David Bain.

    7.. The Minister of course is free to seek advice wherever she wants but if she wanted input from the actual parties to the compensation inquiry (as distinguished from input from her colleagues or other persons with no axe to grind) she should surely have sought input from both sides. There may be much in my report that Mr Bain disagrees with. He doesn’t know because he hasn’t seen it. It is a bit like an appeal process where one side is invited to discuss the case with the REAL decision maker “on appeal” but the claimant is left outside in the dark — not only not knowing what his opponent of 17 years is saying but not even knowing the content of the report that is under discussion. This seems to me unfair.

    8. I appreciate that New Zealanders have strong views about the Bain case (which is why, as an outsider, I was mandated by a previous Minister of Justice to have a look at it) — however I would think most New Zealanders, whatever their views of the merits of David Bain’s claim, would want it dealt with in an even handed and fair process.

    9. The press release states that the Minister raised “concerns” about “some aspects” of the Report at our meeting on September 13. The press release then says she subsequently received “unsolicited, two further versions of his Report”. In the same paragraph of the press release she insists that my “Report must remain confidential”. I am not at liberty, the Minister says, to identify the very minor changes in the Report made in response to her “concerns”. Of course if she did not want a response to her “concerns” raised on September 13 she should have said so. My previous experience at the bar since 1967 is that when clients raise questions they want responses. The minor changes I made to the original document occupy no more than a couple of pages of a lengthy Report and are identified in the two accompanying letters to the Minister.

    10. The Minister seems to have a curiously one sided view of “confidentiality”. She feels free to criticize my Report while claiming in the same press release that the Report is covered by solicitor client privilege and, therefore, I am not to disclose the obvious responses to her criticisms by releasing the Report. (My own view is that the privilege was waived but that is not an issue I care to pursue)

    11. In particular, the press release quotes the Minister as claiming my Report contains certain unidentified ” assumptions based on (unidentified) incorrect facts” demonstrating some (also unidentified ) “misunderstanding of New Zealand law” — despite the fact that at all times I had the very able input from a distinguished and totally independent New Zealand lawyer (who is identified in my Report). Whatever else New Zealand law states, it is certainly well established that it is most improper for “a client” — especially a legally trained client — to attack publicly a lawyer’s advice while simultaneously claiming privilege to protect from disclosure the advice that is being attacked. I would expect that the Minister, as a former Auckland tax lawyer, would be well aware of this principle.

    12. If the Minister would release the Report New Zealanders would be in a position to judge for themselves the merits of the Minister’s press release. The present orchestrations by the Minister would then become unnecessary. Mr Bain would know what is being said about him. The playing field would be at least partially rebalanced.

    13. I met with the Minister on September 13. The press release says that even at that time the Minister had decided on a “peer review”. I certainly have no objection to peer review. The press release states that the matter was then referred to Hon Robert Fisher QC for his opinion. When I was appointed the Minister was careful to disclose at the outset all of the documents and other material provided to me for my consideration. I would have expected the same level of disclosure to apply in the case of Mr Fisher, especially disclosure of material that has come into existence since delivery of my Report, including the comments of the Solicitor General.

    14. The press release says that I will be given an opportunity to respond to Mr Fishers’ opinion. I certainly expect that my response will be published as well.

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

    Actually, DPF, I disagree. Binnie’s points are quite reasonable. I don’t see him being passionately pro-Bain. He has discussed the process and has found it wanting. I tend to agree with him.

    IMO Collins should release Binnie’s report(s). I don’t have a problem with that, and I agree that Bain should know what Binnie has said about him. Where’s the controversey?

    I am very nervous where Crown Law and the Justice Ministry are concerned. The latter in particular are not independent and their advice in respect of the Peter Ellis case has been appalling. While I have doubts about Bain’s innocence, I also have considerable doubt about the quality of advice emanating from the Ministry. They have a vested interest in this case. Remember what officials said about the Bain case after Bain had applied for the Royal prerogative of mercy in 1998:

    “We do not consider that any of the matters advanced in the petition when looked at individually point to a miscarriage of justice…[n]or do we consider that they have a collective significance which may cast doubt on the safety of the petitioner’s convictions…[w]e acknowledge that there were a number of errors in the Crown’s case. However we do not consider they indicate a likely miscarriage of justice, having regard to the overall weight of the Crown case…On that basis, we cannot recommend a pardon at this stage. Nor is a referral back to the Court of Appeal under section 406(a) of the Crimes Act 1961 warranted.” (Ministry of Justice, Application for the Royal prerogative of mercy: David Cullen Bain, 31 October 2000)

    I understand that essentially the same case that Bain made in his application for a re-trial or pardon was made to the Privy Council. How was it that the Justice Ministry were able to say that there was no miscarriage of justice but the Privy Council said there was a substantial miscarriage of justice?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    “What strikes me as fascinating is how passionately pro-Bain he is. He complains that David Bain has not yet been given a copy of his report, for example.”

    Ummm … he points out that natural justice (remember that concept – the one you thought so important in relation to Peters’ sacking of Horan?) would seem to require that Collins provide both sides with the same information. How that then becomes “passionately pro-Bain” is pretty hard to see. Unless, of course, you are now trying to bend the stick the other way after initially saying Binnie’s report was good enough grounds for you to accept Bain’s innocence (just like I did: http://pundit.co.nz/content/the-return-to-zero).

    “He also cites the Privy Council judgement at length, but of course that was a decision there were grounds for a retrial.”

    He does so in order to point out that the office that Collins is receiving advice from about the accuracy of his report is the same office that fought to uphold Bain’s conviction all the way to the Privy Council – which then found their approach to the case to be wrong. But if you are comfortable believing that having fought so long and hard to uphold Bain’s conviction, they are now acting in a totally impartial and disinterested manner by casting doubt on a report saying Bain is innocent, then I leave you to your imaginary land of fairies and lollipop trees.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Tom Jackson.
    If you have no idea whether or not David Bain murdered his family take a look at the blog on counterspin .co.nz.
    That might give you some idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    RRM – you make it sound like Judith is sending Bain back to jail.

    You think she should release a dodgy report? really? why the rush?

    I wont be thrilled if the report is never released. But at least allow them the chance to seek further advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @ AG 9:57 am

    But if you are comfortable believing that having fought so long and hard to uphold Bain’s conviction, they are now acting in a totally impartial and disinterested manner by casting doubt on a report saying Bain is innocent, then I leave you to your imaginary land of fairies and lollipop trees.

    AKA Planet Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. shoreboy57 (140 comments) says:

    Have to say DPF, one of your worst posts of the year.

    Collins may not like the report and I have no problem with an independent peer review (not what it will be BTW), but to suggest Binnie is pro-Bain by suggesting that Bain should see the report is poor analysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Dime all of my concerns would disappear if she released the report and pointed out the flaws for me. If she’s right, then why wouldn’t she do this? It seems dodgy to me that she won’t do this, and instead is hoping we’ll take her word for it, sight unseen, that the report’s got all these [undisclosed] things wrong with it and really the Government was right all along.

    All I’ve got to work on at the moment is how Collins presents herself in the media vs how Binnie presents himself.

    And I’ve got to say he sounds like someone well worth listening to.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. dime (10,089 comments) says:

    RRM – so you think the report should be released. It says “give him some cash”. They then point out why its not happening and then we have to wait for an actual decision? Really?

    Wouldnt that turn it into an absolute shambles? *waits for the “it already is” comment.. so wouldnt it turn this into an even bigger shambles?

    also unfair on bain.

    also, this guy has his hand out asking for millions of dollars. he can fuckin wait til everything is in order.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    David et al,
    Assuming that you have no read Binnie (above), would you care to recant?
    I recant some aspects of my earlier comments on Heron. Binnie makes it plain that he met David Collins (then SG) in January last, not Heron. He clarifies that the (independent?) position of Solicitor General is being used by, and for, political and establishment ends.

    Love his slicing and dicing of Collins the former tax lawyer. Oh dear, what a pity. Never mind.
    Collins chose to play in the legal bigs. She has suffered the ignominious consequences.

    I would say that Binnie coukl now embark (with marked success) on a new career – bebunking political bullshit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    Collins can engage in as much politics as she likes on this one. Simon Power handed her a dog in Justice Binnie, and she is completely justified in putting him down.

    Justice must be done, and justice demands that the killer of the Bain family does not get a cent of taxpayer money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    The father was incesting the daughter and he killed the family

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Shocking and disgraceful politized post by farrar in regards to an independent opinion that doesnt suit the governments agenda in this case.

    At no point does Binnie show any bias towards Bain, however is (correctly) critical of the result and lack of privilege shown by Collins and now lack of independence with the appointment of Hon Robert Fisher to peer review. Why not peer reviewed by an Independent from Australia, I’m sure criminal law is closer to NZ than Tax Law is to Criminal Law in NZ

    If this report is under privilege, then there is no reason for Collins to open her big fat gob about it, however because the recommendation wasnt to her liking then i’m sure the Fork Carrying HillBillies will be blaming the Labour Party

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Akaroa (578 comments) says:

    That Judge is a Canadian isn’t he?

    Says it all in my book!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Viking2 (11,547 comments) says:

    Hmmm, well IMHO Binnie has shown his ability and nicely handed a second rate tax lawyer (and by implication a lawyer who helps taxpayers to minimize their rightful tax charges at the expense of other taxpayers), her arse on a plate.

    Well thought out, clear and quite logical reply.

    As I said the other day I would be more impressed if Collins had referred this to a Jurist from say Australia or even England for comment.
    To sneak off to a member of one of our most incestuous institutions for an opinion was clearly always going to be a problem.

    And someone suggests She would a PM. Not on those actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. davidp (3,587 comments) says:

    BlairM>Justice must be done, and justice demands that the killer of the Bain family does not get a cent of taxpayer money.

    Absolutely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (10,001 comments) says:

    Dime – Yeah I don’t mind if the overall process takes a bit of time.

    But the longer the report is kept under wraps the more it looks like the Govt is trying to sweep an unfavourable report under the carpet.

    The flipside of that is that Binnie hasn’t signed Bain’s cheque – just an independent review of all the court cases, one of many things Key gets to consider in deciding whether or not to write a cheque.

    So even if Collins is wrong in what she says, then where’s the harm in publishing? Isn’t catching mistakes one of the main reasons you have an external review?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    “That Judge is a Canadian isn’t he?”

    Coincidentally, a Canadian has just taken over the reins of the Bank of England

    Is England English anymore. A huge corporate EU puppet

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    The father was incesting the daughter and he killed the family

    Oh how clever, did you come up with that one all by yourself? How come all the evidence points to David, not Robin? How come the extended family will have nothing to do with David to this day? That alone tells you everything you need to know about who was more likely to be the killer.

    There was icky stuff going on in that family, but it was not the Dad doing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Well, the first assumption based on incorrect facts is evident in the Press release as posted by flipper at 9.54am above. This is an extract:

    5. It is a curious feature of this case that all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt. By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2003 that no miscarriage of justice had occurred.

    Binnie gets it completely wrong, the Privy Council did not reject the arguments of Crown law regarding David Bain’s guilt, they simply overturned the Court of Appeal decision regarding not allowing a retrial, ordered that a retrial take place, while at the same time recommending that Bain stay in prison. That is not a rejection of David Bain’s guilt at all. The miscarriage of justice as described by the Law Lords was the Court of Appeal decision not to grant a retrial on the basis of the alleged “new evidence”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    There was icky stuff going on in that family, but it was not the Dad doing it.

    Yeah, just who was really doing it: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/story/time-i-spent-with-laniet-and-arawa

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    @Akaroa
    WTF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Akaroa (578 comments) says:

    Lance – Been to Canada have you? Known many Canadians?

    If you have, you shouldn’t be so puzzled over my comment.

    (Some are great people BTW – I met one once)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Crikey Dick,
    Justice Binnie has even made a mistake in that press release.
    Can’t wait to see his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. unaha-closp (1,179 comments) says:

    Let’s have a moratorium on fracking/David Bain compensation until such time as incontrovertible proof is found.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. BeaB (2,142 comments) says:

    It seems to me that a lot of the comment here is based on whether you like/don’t like Judith Collins or whether you think Bain is innocent/guilty. Hardly dispassionate or the basis for a sensible dicussion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    One side wants to make decisions behind closed doors, the other wants it out in public view. I know which I would prefer.

    If Binnie has made mistakes, why can’t we all see them?

    I agree with Tom Jackson’s suspicions. The NZ justice establishment is covering its butt, just as it did with Peter Ellis, Erebus and Arthur Thomas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    A few quick points.

    DPF at the outset is quite incorrect. The Privy Council were petitioned for a re-trial, an application they upheld, they were asked by the petitioner for no more unfortunately, the barest fruits for the labours toward freedom to that point. There was a qualifier from the PC, that it was up to the New Zealand authorities to decide whether such a retrial was in the public interest. One would imagine that the rendering of the Crown case to being described as ‘an actual Miscarriage of Justice’ was a strong enough message. But not apparently to Crown Law who went on and frankly embarrassed themselves at the re-trial.

    Binnie’s letter, excellent in content and certainly detached, brings home one of the most startling recent issues of all – not the ‘secrecy’ of the report which in itself is bad enough, but that fact that the report is being kept secret to the benefit of the Minister, Crown Law and the police – but there is no such concern for the reputation of Binnie who has been freely attacked. Collin’s behaviour in that aspect is inexcusable, as are the comments about Binnie ‘not understanding’ NZ law when in fact he took high levelled advice as required. She has even suggested that he won’t be paid, as though his motivation in not providing what she wanted was money When he took advice on NZ Law we can assume it wasn’t because he anticipated that the Minister would attack him, but that rather it was consistent with his brief to be fully informed and counselled as necessary on N Z law.

    Look where Fisher now finds himself, appearing (unfortunately) as being able to be considered as the ‘henchman’ of Collins. The disservice to Binnie is also a disservice to Fisher, though I don’t expect that if he does in fact, after the current fiasco, submit a report, that it will be any more helpful to the ‘neutral’ Collins and ‘her’ departments. What a botch up.

    For a demonstration of the panic of those who have for years persecuted Bain, look no further that the links posted above from discredited ‘sites’ with their own iron of ‘neutrality’ in the fire – being sued.

    Binnie has just been honoured in his own country. If our Minister had just a touch of humility or decency, respect for her own profession as a lawyer, she would unreservedly apologise to him and reconsider the now obvious incapacity she has shown for holding office.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. MD (62 comments) says:

    We went through a process of engaging an impartial third party to determine whether compensation should be paid, we should abide by the results of that process. If we weren’t prepared to accept the results we shouldn’t have gone down that road and instead just refused the claim. It’s the worst sort of political behavior to engage a third party then slag them off (while keeping the report confidential) when you don’t get the answer you want. This is the sort of political gamesmanship that a recent speaker bought to Parliament and which bought both Parliament and the office of the Speaker into disrepute.
    There would need to be major errors of law or process apparent in the report to overturn it’s conclusions and in that case the report and the advice on which it’s overturned would need to be made public. You cannot use Crown Law / MoJ / Solicitor General advice as the basis for overturning the conclusions – they are the reason we are in this mess in the first place, and are hopelessly conflicted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    NostalgiaNZ’s continual appeals to authority do not constitute a compelling argument in favour of David Bain not killing his family. The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. One should care not that the pudding is the Grand Canadian Pooh-Bah of puddings. It should also be edible.

    To release the report now without Cabinet making a decision would be silly. The Minister is only commenting in response to public pressure. Perhaps she should not have done so, but too late now. She is obliged to wait on the conclusion of the review of the report, having committed to it. And fuck no, no way should Karam and Bain see this thing so that they can use it to bully and badger for their expected loot. That would be nothing like “natural justice”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    We went through a process of engaging an impartial third party to determine whether compensation should be paid, we should abide by the results of that process.

    Would you say the same thing if the Minister simply decided to toss a coin? It stands to reason that if the process is flawed and does not produce a just result, then the process is bullshit. The Minister is our representative, and has every right to question some Canuck judge’s opinion and decide contrary to whatever that opinion is. In fact, that is exactly what she should do, because David Bain is a murderer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    Karam has run crying to the media that this is upsetting poor wee David-

    “He had spoken to Mr Bain last weekend and said he was “very, very upset”.
    He had had a “terrible week” following revelations last Monday that Ms Collins was getting more advice.”

    That story almost made me puke. His family lying cold and dead in their graves didn’t have a particularly ‘good week’ either Joe.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853490

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

    Longknives,

    I wonder how upset Arawa, Laniet, Stephen and their parents were when confronted with a rifle pointing at their heads? Obviously nothing compared with the distress caused to David. He doesn’t seem to get it and probably never will.

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

    I suspect it is Karam who is most upset because he can see the dollar signs slowly slipping away from him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    I have read Binnie’s statement which shows a scary misapprehension of events. The PC did not make any comment about guilt or innocence. It refused to go into that arena. It dealt with admissibility of evidence. The jury did not find him innocent. It found that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyound reasonable doubt. I gather that he refused to hear from one of the jurors who expressed concern about jury misconduct. He cannot do that and, in the same breath, conclude that the jury found him innocent. I have no wonder why Collins is getting a second opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    BlairM, your meal is a surfeit of utter nonsense. What you may believe is irrelevant to due process and natural justice.

    Collins has well and truly muddied her water. She will likely now find it is hiding crocodiles that will chew at her reputation for a very long time. For her now politically, absolutely everything depends on Fisher’s vindication. How independent can that possibly be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Lance (2,704 comments) says:

    @Akaroa
    The Canadians I have known are all pretty laid back. Generally think their neighbors to the south are paranoid and insane

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    The father was incesting the daughter and he killed the family

    It amazes me how the overwhelming preponderence of the evidence points to Robin not killing his entire family is ignored yet one third hand piece of “evidence” from a trouble daughter with a history of making shit up is taken as gospel by the believers. Madness.

    The point above about Justice Binnie’s referance to the Privy Council is well made. In fact the Privy Council was at pains to emphasise that they were not making any decision about guilt or innocence. It is worth remembering that the error that the Court of Appeal made was, at its simpilest, to put aside the miscarriage of justice in the first trial because in their view the evidence that the first jury should have heard could not have changed the verdict. In effect the Court of Appeal moved from being arbiters of process to replicating the role of the Jury. I find it strange that Binnie J seems to equate the Privy Council decision (which was im(very)ho correct) with the quite different question of whether David Bain is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    I am also a little surprised that the Binnie J has choosen to enter the political fray around his report albiet Collins could perhaps have been a little more tempered in her words bearing in mind that the media will always turn “I was concerned …” into “Minister Slams Report”.

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

    What other Judges is Binnie referring to when he states that the Privy Council were just the most prominent of the external Judges to find Bain ‘innocent’. What other external Judges have looked into the case?

    His comments on the Privy Council somehow supporting his argument that Bain is innocent also seem a bit off and misrepresenting their actual position and comments on the matter.

    Maybe this is an indication as to why a review is necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,264) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 11:43 am
    I have read Binnie’s statement which shows a scary misapprehension of events. The PC did not make any comment about guilt or innocence. It refused to go into that arena. It dealt with admissibility of evidence. The jury did not find him innocent. It found that the Crown had failed to prove guilt beyound reasonable doubt. I gather that he refused to hear from one of the jurors who expressed concern about jury misconduct. He cannot do that and, in the same breath, conclude that the jury found him innocent. I have no wonder why Collins is getting a second opinion.

    Where Nookin?
    Comprehension difficulties today?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @ross69, the most upset people seem to be those who believe David Bain guilty just as the most emotive people were those who believed Peter Ellis guilty.

    There’s a bit of a pattern, with those who believe in global warming, rabid environmentalism, anti-abortion and the war on drugs – all pressure politicians to subvert the evidence and dispassionate judgement. Strong belief rings my warning bells. It has no place in justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    BlairM I admire your frantic state, but it has clouded your view. A bit like the Minister.

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

    “What other Judges is Binnie referring to when he states that the Privy Council were just the most prominent of the external Judges to find Bain ‘innocent’. What other external Judges have looked into the case?”

    Yeah I was thinking the same thing. I think apart from Binnie, the ONLY external judges were those on the Privy Council. Maybe he really is senile. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. sgthree (13 comments) says:

    Binnies statement, reproduced above, is the best evidence so far supporting Judith Collins stance. In it, he quite clearly demonstrates a lack of understanding of the law and the facts.

    In paragraph 4 he states that the decision of the Privy Council that there had been a miscarriage of justice was reinforced by the verdict in the 2009 retrial. I am astounded that he would make such a statement.

    The acquittal did not reinforce the conclusion of the Privy Council. The Privy Council was at pains to say that it did not have an opinion as to whether Bain was guilty or not. In NZ, the term miscarriage of justice refers to the process, not the outcome. You can have a trial which is found to have been a miscarriage of justice, but which still reaches the right result.
    Binnie has demonstrated in his statement that he does not understand the meaning of the term miscarriage of justice, nor doe he understand the PC decision. He has also demonstrated a failure to understand the 2009 jury’s verdict. His statement quite clearly demonstrates a belief that the not guilty verdict equates to a finding of innocence.

    Then in paragraph 5 he states that “all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt”. Again a mistake that goes to the very heart of his integrity.

    The PC made no judgement on David Bain’s guilt. Their judgement states “In closing, the Board wishes to emphasise, as it hopes is clear, that its decision imports no view whatever on the proper outcome of a retrial”

    Collins doesn’t have to release the report now. Binnie, by his own statements, has vindicated everything she has said about the report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Dexter read para5 again of Binnie’s letter again, you’re quoting a pattern of moonbeams.

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

    Unless he’s referring to Sir Thomas Thorpe, given that he was a retired Judge and out of the system while publishing literature attacking the Justice system and miscarriages of Justice including Peter Ellis.

    But his independent review of the case found David Bain to be guilty?

    Now all this affair needs to show judicial class is the original Privy council Judges to write letters to the paper attacking Binnies misrepresentation…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    “Where Nookin?
    Comprehension difficulties today?”\
    ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Falafulu Fisi (2,179 comments) says:

    The following quote is true (see link [1] below).

    …it is clear that the legal profession remains generally fairly ignorant of Bayesian (belief) reasoning

    Justice Ian Binni is one of those ignorant legal profession as the quote above says.

    For lawyers here, please read the following papers, because it describe what’s the formal definition of probabilistic reasoning is. Stop talking about balance of probability without understanding the formal definition of probabilistic reasoning. No one can manipulate the Bayes Network. Sure one or a few nodes of the bayesian belief network can be argued by both defense & prosecuting team of what probability can be assigned to it, but since it is a network (a brain neuron networks), it is simply impossible to manipulate all the probability in the nodes. Everywhere I read about the Bain’s case, the concept of balance of probability is brought up. Not once, I mean not once, anyone either a legal expert manage to clarify to the general public in a quantitative way of what this means. This is why there is confusion out there because a balance to one party is not a balance at all to the opposing party.

    Lets say, the scratches on David’s face is assigned a chance of 0.5 that it was caused by his struggle with Steven and a chance of 0.5 that he wrote the final message in the computer, and so forth. The size of the network is something that can be constructed by both defense & prosecuting team. There are certain nodes and connections that needs to be pruned from the network since their presence will have no contribution to the final output at all. The output is probabilistic, which is the aggregates of all the causal nodes that leads to the output/conclusion node, that chance that David Bain did it (lets say, there’s 77% chance he did it).

    [1] The “Jury Observation Fallacy” and the use of Bayesian Networks to present Probabilistic Legal Arguments

    [2] Avoiding Probabilistic Reasoning Fallacies in Legal Practice using Bayesian Networks

    For interested legal professions here, just search on the topic of “Bayesian Networks in law” and Google will come up with a few other links.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @Dexter, “all the external judges” comprise himself and the Privy Council judges.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Nookin (2,265) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
    “Where Nookin?
    Comprehension difficulties today?”\

    You’re earlier post referred to ‘guilt and innocence’ determination by the PC but there is nothing in Binnie’s letter which says the same, nor did the PC judgement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi

    What scratches on Bain’s face, even those that spread lies about him don’t claim that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Thanks for those posts Alan W and Nostalgia.
    But I fear you are trying to achieve the impossible – persuading the flat earth society to actually look at what Binnie said, not what they mistakenly thn k (or deliberately mis-state) he said.

    Check out Binnie’s para 5 – again:

    “It is a curious feature of this case that all of the “external” judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the Solicitor General and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt. By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, which reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision in 2003 that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. In that appeal, too, David Bain’s arguments were dismissed by the Solicitor General as based on incorrect facts and a misapprehension of New Zealand law. The Privy Council judgment was authored by Lord Thomas Bingham, generally regarded as one of the brightest and best judges produced by the common law world since the Second World War. In a much more modest capacity, as a retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, I too have expressed views on the respective merits of the case of Mr Bain and the Crown. People are free to disagree with my views (as they are free to disagree with the views of the Privy Council and the 2009 Christchurch jury), but it is no disrespect to the able Hon Robert Fisher QC to note that the Minister is keen to repatriate the Bain case to her home turf. “

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

    Yeah had to re-read it to establish that. It’s really quite a poor misrepresentation on his behalf to add credibility. The reality he has been the only external Judge to have been formally asked to establish David’s guilt or innocence. Even going as far as to allude to the Jury’s decision who were tasked a much different objective.

    Pretty poor form from someone with his reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    Nostalgia.

    Fair comment. I did not express myself that well. Binnie’s theme is that the Crown, trying to uphold the conviction, got it wrong throughout. He called in support of his argument the fact that PC said that there was a miscarriage of justice and that this was effectively confirmed by the jury’s acquittal. Binnie’s role was to see if there was innocence on balance. The PC decision on admissibility and the jury decision to acquit are not convincing arguments of innocence.

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

    > “all the external judges” comprise himself and the Privy Council judges.

    He didn’t say that, Alan. He said the most prominent external judges….in fact they are the ONLY external judges (apart from himself). And you’re missing the key issue that he said the external judges all rejected “David Bain’s guilt”. The Privy Council said there was sufficient evidence for which Bain could be tried. And rejecting guilt is a far cry from affirming innocence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. DylanReeve (166 comments) says:

    The point about the Privy counsel is not that they found Bain innocent. It’s that they found the government’s case to be falwed. He is making a point not about innocense or guilt, but about the history of the Solicitor General and Crown Law in regards to the case, and about the inappropriateness of their reviewing his report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Harriet (5,099 comments) says:

    There seems to be something very strange going on here with regards to NZ law-

    Do the dead get a coroners hearing or do their deaths simply remain ‘unaccounted for’?

    And if there IS a coroners hearing – then why don’t the findings of that hearing have nothing to do with the ‘balance of probabilities’ and the decision about David’s ‘compensation’?

    Do coroners courts in NZ now amount to nothing?

    Surely the law can’t simply say “It doesn’t matter why they got butchered. Forget about it” – that AIN’T justice!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Having read Mr Binnie’s statement as set out above, I agree with AG’s comment of 9.57am.

    I do not read the statement as being pro-Bain at all.

    Minister Collins does not appear to be covering herself with glory in this case. Indeed, she appears to be acting very badly, continuing this government’s tradition of poor justice ministers that started with the execrable Simon Power.

    By the way, the criticism of Binnie’s commercial background is unwarranted. Few of NZs top judges (High Court and above) have any background in criminal law, a situation that has had a deleterious effect on NZ criminal law. Indeed, most of the Privy Council committee that upheld Bain’s appeal were commercial lawyers when at the Bar.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Weihana (4,583 comments) says:

    Falafulu Fisi (2,092) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 12:24 pm

    Not sure of the relevance to Justice Binnie, but thanks for the link re Jury Observation Fallacy. Excellent read. I’m going to print it out and give it to a lawyer to read.

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

    Easy to say in hindsight but this process has really been handled poorly by the government.

    I think what the David Bain supporters need to realise is that half of the country thinks it would be absolutely perverse if Bain (who in their minds possibly murdered his entire family and tried to frame his dad for it) could now hit the jackpot – millions of dollars in “compensation” making him a financially wealthy man.

    And on the other side of the coin, the Robin Bain supporters (including the Minister it seems) need to play by the rules, whether they like the ultimate outcome or not.

    That all said, wouldn’t this whole debacle best be put aside? How about both sides “agree to disagree”? The government is elected by the public. Rather than have the compensation decision one way or another alienate approximately half of the public, why not set up a David Bain “compensation” account which supporters can donate their 25 or 50 cents each to, producing a tidy sum in excess of NZ$1,000,000. Meanwhile we Robin Bain supporters need not pay a cent more for this guy than we already paid while supporting his existence in prison for 13 years, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Harriet (5,099 comments) says:

    FE Smith#

    I believe you are a lawyer? Could you please answer my qusetion at 1:13[directly above you] as I live in QLD and don’t get to follow everything about this case.Thank you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. V (743 comments) says:

    The second Binnie went and spoke to Bain, read Karams book or spoke to police officiers he should have received his marching orders.

    The process should have been to review all evidence presented in court and form a view, not some sort of DIY investigation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ross69 12.57

    He didn’t say ‘most’ at all. Now you’re displaying why you such an unreliable commentator of facts. Even when on the same page you twist a meaning for those gullible enough to believe you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    For me its quite simple

    David Bain probably killed his family, most likely killed his family. Unfortunatly thats not enough to convict him in a court of law.

    The only other possibilty was that Robin Bain did it.

    If you stack the evidence available regarding David and Robin side by side, my logical conclusion is David did it.

    Therefore to hell with all the technical and theological shit – David did it, David should not be paid one single cent for being a perverted cold blooded killer.

    Simple imho

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Nookin 12.57

    That clears it up for me, thanks.

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

    Nostalgia

    Try reading what Binnie wrote:

    “By far the most prominent, of course, were the five judges of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council…”. The fact is that these were the only promiment judges to have decided Bain’s guilt, notwithstanding that they felt there was sufficient evidence for a re-trial. It’s curious that Binnie didn’t say that in his press release. If his report is indicative of his press release, I suspect it won’t be terribly trustworthy.

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

    Good point V. Whose to say that anyone wouldn’t develop a degree of sympathy after reading those books and then spending a day with the subject. The same could well apply on the other side. It also calls into question what investigative interviewing experience he has in criminal matters given his background and whether that is a role he should ever have placed himself in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Harriet…
    You are away with the fairies.
    Please come back to earth if you wish to be taken seriously.

    Ross69, and others:
    The PC was not asked to find Bain innocent. The PC was asked (by Bain) to ORDER (repeat , ORDER) a new trial – that which had been denied by the NZ legal fraternity.
    That request was OPPOSED by the Crown/.Solicitor general.
    The PC said there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice on 8 (eight) grounds, none technical.
    The PC granted the application , but left it NZ to decide whether to so do.
    Collins. D and his C L/police minions ignored the implications of the PC decision and decided to have a re-trail.
    They LOST.
    It could be (almost certainly is) that Binnie has slated the Crown/Sol Gen / Police actions…..and they do not like it because it would open another can of worms…like Ellis, Watson, ( & Lundy?).

    OH dear, what a pity. Never mind!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Harriet,

    No coroners hearing because Bain was convicted in the first case so the deaths were not of unknown causes that required investigation. A lot like the Kahui case: if Kahui had been convicted then there would not have been a coroner’s inquest. His acquittal meant that the deaths were unsolved, hence the hearings.

    At least, that is the understanding that I have always operated under, but I confess to never having paid it much attention. See Part 3 of the Coroners Act 2006 for the actual law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I see that one David Bain supporter has written “Even those that spread lies about him [David Bain].
    That’s rich . That same supporter only yesterday said that Robin Bain had a bleeding nose because Stephen had punched him,hence Robin Bain’s blood on that green towel in the laundry.
    What a load of old cobblers. If Stephen had given his father a bloody nose then some of that blood would have dripped on to Stephen when he was being strangled with his T-shirt.
    But there was no trace of Robin Bain’s blood on Stephen.
    If Robin Bain had had a nose bleed,and I don’t believe for one minute that he did, that sounds to me like a myth perpetrated by a myth perpetrator, but if he did then he could only have gotten it from David Bain punching him on the nose. David Bain could have then used that towel to clean the blood from around his father’s nose.
    There was a drop of Robin Bain’s blood in the handbasin that David Bain said he had washed his hands in to remove the printers ink so it would appear he must have had his father’s blood on his hands after he did that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Belinda (141 comments) says:

    sgthree @12.05PM

    What a sane sensible post, it deserves far wider publicity than this blog.

    I am so pleased that Judith Collins refused to rubber stamp this seemingly embarrassing for Binne report.

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

    > The PC was asked (by Bain) to ORDER (repeat , ORDER) a new trial

    Wrong. Karam and Co did everything they could to prevent a re-trial.

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

    > It could be (almost certainly is) that Binnie has slated the Crown/Sol Gen / Police actions

    Maybe so. Except he wasn’t tasked with this. He was asked to rule on Bain’s compo.

    I recall Sir Thomas Eichelbaum saying that Peter Ellis had failed to prove his innocence. The problem was, Ellis was never asked – nor was he required – to prove his innocence. Another jurist with great credentials who couldn’t follow his brief.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    muggins @1.38pm.

    That is pure fiction. The blood in Stephen’s room, and on his body was NEVER tested, and why would it be? To believe in the guilt or innocence of David Bain is one thing, but to print pure lies to sway others to your way of thinking is nothing more than dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Karam said in his latest book that he wrote to Helen Clark and Michael Cullen exhorting them to consider other options that would serve the public better than a costly,time consuming retrial.

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

    As I stated above, Karam and Co did not want a re-trial and went back to the Privy Council to prevent another trial. The Privy Council took 5 minutes to make their decision. Curiously, Binnie didn’t mention this in his press release.

    Privy Council throws out David Bain’s acquittal appeal
    NZ Herald
    Tuesday Dec 9, 2008

    LONDON – David Bain’s lawyers failed in their bid to have the multiple murder accused’s charges dismissed by law lords at the Privy Council in London today.

    But Bain’s lawyer Michael Reed and lead supporter Joe Karam said the British law lords had made history by forcing the New Zealand solicitor general David Collins to consider all evidence presented at the Privy Council at further hearings in New Zealand courts.

    The Commonwealth’s highest court ruled against Bain in a preliminary hearing to consider whether to grant his defence team leave to have its application for acquittal heard by the full council.

    Bain is now set to face a new trial next year.

    Bain’s lawyers hoped to persuade the Privy Council to recall the decision it delivered last year that Bain should be retried for the murder of his father, mother, two sisters and brother in Dunedin in 1994.

    Lord Hoffman, Lord Scott and Lord Mance ruled against Bain’s team after just five minutes deliberation.

    Mr Reed argued the Privy Council could look at the case more widely than New Zealand courts and argued a stay was the correct decision for the law lords to make.

    “Knowing what we know now we’re reasonably confident the board would have ordered an acquittal and not a retrial.”

    But the law lords said: “This is surely a point for the New Zealand courts.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘ross69 (1,181) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 1:41 pm
    > The PC was asked (by Bain) to ORDER (repeat , ORDER) a new trial

    Wrong. Karam and Co did everything they could to prevent a re-trial.’

    Wrong as usual. Read the petition.

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

    I don’t think the fanatics on either side of the debate offering their ‘expert’ opinion on the evidence has any relevance here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    You must have trouble lying straight in bed ross. The first petition was an application for a retrial, the result was that it was granted leaving whether or not it went ahead with the Crown. When the Crown decided to go ahead then there was an effort to seek an order that no retrial was necessary. Try to keep to the facts.

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

    > Wrong as usual.

    So that Herald report above is wrong? So Karam writing to Helen Clark and Michael Cullen asking for a stay never happened?

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

    Karam and Co foot tooth and nail to prevent another trial from going ahead. They even appealed to the High Court. They must have been concerned that the jury would convict.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559125

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Ross69..
    Binnie had to deliver a report that supported his findings/recommendations – whatever they were.
    In so doing, sensible folk believe, he may have justified his finding (in part, anyway) by slating the Crowm – hence the pre-release screams of rage.

    That is not outside his brief.

    Imagine if he had simply said “yes” or “No”. Would that be acceptable ?
    His brief clearly required him to support his finding/recommendation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    They’re having a bad day kanz, not as bad as the Minister however and those she is trying to cover for.

    Binnie has said that he considers ‘confidentiality’ of the report has already been wavered but that isn’t a path he chooses to go down. But it will come out. Probably sooner than Collins hopes. I just wonder why she chose to attack Binnie, surely she realised he wasn’t going to hold tight while she flippantly went about ‘dishing’ him. Egg thick on her face about him ‘not understanding NZ Law, yet she would have known he’d taken high level advice on NZ Law and that was in the report. Binnie’s letter tells us a lot, and probably gives meaning to his reason for wanting to interview those 2 Dunedin detectives now apparently on the Minister’s protection list, perhaps along with her namesake and others.

    We could see the measure of David Fisher in the next 2 days. What a bloody curve ball to throw him, a bloody hospital pass from the tax lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Karam and Co foot tooth and nail to prevent another trial from going ahead. They even appealed to the High Court. They must have been concerned that the jury would convict.

    To be honest, that isn’t a good indicator of guilt.  Even if I had unassailable faith in my client’s innocence I would still try to avoid a trial as much as possible simply because they can be so unpredictable.  

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

    > his reason for wanting to interview those 2 Dunedin detectives

    I sincerely hope Binnie interviewed Messrs Buckley and Taylor about Bain allegedly planning to rape a jogger…I am sure he did given that Binnie is obsessed with fairness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘When the Crown decided to go ahead then there was an effort to seek an order that no retrial was necessary.’

    That’s what I said Ross. Are you so blinded that you comfortably align yourself with political interference in due process?

    flipper 2.07

    It wasn’t out of his brief at all was it? Particularly that such contributing factors would include the application of being ‘outside’ the rules and within ‘extraordinary circumstances.’ Binnie needed to show those circumstances in order to support his finding and recommendation for compensation. The Minister got what was asked for, but doesn’t like it. I’m just trying to recall if it was Doug Graham’s advice that NZ didn’t sign a UN convention of compensation for unlawful imprisonment. The seeds for this go back a long way, even before the Thomas case and the rubbishing of Peter Mahon for fronting up with an unpalatable truth.

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

    Now it’s been alleged that Binnie went “well beyond” his brief. No surprises there. The problem with going beyond his brief is that it raises questions about the reliability of the rest of his report.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (786 comments) says:

    So Binnie’s a Bainie huh

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Ross69 “Now it’s been alleged that Binnie went “well beyond” his brief. No surprises there. The problem with going beyond his brief is that it raises questions about the reliability of the rest of his report.”

    It at the very least now calls into question his conclusions and recommendations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference

    Thanks ross.

    So Ms Collins finally shows some restraint, and it is revealed what many have considered for weeks: Those involved in a Miscarriage of Justice have been found out and don’t like it. What sweet sadness for them, I guess they’re hurting knowing that people will get a chance to have their conduct analysed in terms of how they may have contributed to our biggest Miscarriage of Justice. They expected to be afforded something they refused David Bain for over a decade. It’s a TKO in the early rounds which gives the Minister the opportunity to resume at least an ‘air’ of neutrality and not be hammered in other Judicial venues. But the process needs to be looked at big time. In fact after reading the report it won’t just be the compensation process but a much wider picture as to what can, and does, go wrong Myopia – sorry I meant Utopia.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @ross69, I guess we will all know soon, but it looks like Tom Jackson was dead right and Binnie criticised the NZ justice establishment. So Collins says that is going beyond his brief and Binnie will say he was just showing why he decided Bain qualifies for compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Ross69…
    Let it be. Just accept that, at the end of the day, an eminient jurist, with access to all documents, and to people involved in the Bain prosecution/persecution(?), is likely to be better informed than we kiwibloggers of whatever colour etc.

    Nostalgia has delivered to you a gilt edged response.
    In the context of what under-pins this whole discussion, no pun intended. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    David you are talking bollocks on the bias issue. Collins is acting appallingly here. She is calling Binnie unprofessional for responding in the media for the attacks she has made on his professionalism and understanding of the law. WTF does she expect. Binnie is hardly likely to sit back and let a hyper ambitious politician use him as a whipping boy. As usual the crown fucks up the Bain saga which is low a litiny of incompetence.

    I don’t know if Bain is guilty but what is clear is the crown law office and police have a lot to answer for one way or the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Flipper “Let it be. Just accept that, at the end of the day, an eminient jurist, with access to all documents, and to people involved in the Bain prosecution/persecution(?), is likely to be better informed than we kiwibloggers of whatever colour etc.”

    Perhaps so however that doesn’t automatically mean that he got it 100% right and isn’t immune to some scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Oh dear, looks like Binnie’s report is down the dunny: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference

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

    > Oh dear, looks like Binnie’s report is down the dunny

    Maybe, but the cult of Bain will never die. :)

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

    > an eminient jurist…is likely to be better informed

    I love it when Bain supporters appeal to a higher authority to support their position. They may as well say that God is on David’s side. It won’t change the outcome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    There is no indication whatsoever that the report will be ditched. They have to have a report, and Fisher has NOT been asked to write another. He has been asked to review Binnie’s report and the processes involved.

    As Binnie has implied, Collins didn’t get the result she wanted so she thinks she can shop around until she finds someone that will give her that answer. She clearly is not unbiased in this matter, with links to the police, and has acted in an inappropriate manner towards a person of high international standing. She is an embarrasment, and should be removed from dealing with this case. That she saw fit to give the report to the Crown, but deny Bain’s legal representation a copy is a huge indication of that bias. Which ultimately will cost her – she has backed herself and the government into a corner, one they will have to pay to get out of.

    A sad day for ‘justice’ and all that it stands for. Regardless of the result, neither side can be content with the manner in which the results will have been achieved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I would have to disagree with you Wayne. The murderer is buried with a wife who did not want him, and his son and daughters. May he rest in the peace he obviously didn’t have in life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    Judith – easy to blame someone who doesn’t have a band of self serving champions to twist and distort the truth to protect him.

    Do you think a court of law, with the evidence given the same scrutiny that the evidence against David Bain was subject to would convict Robin Bain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Elaycee (4,403 comments) says:

    Judith Collins spoke to Parliament this afternoon:

    Justice Minister Judith Collins says retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie got it wrong over crucial footprint evidence in the David Bain murder trials. Bloody sockprints were left in Bain’s Dunedin home, likely by the killer – and there was debate over who left them there.
    In Parliament this afternoon, Collins gave two examples of what she believed were ‘‘assumptions based on incorrect facts’’ and a misunderstanding of New Zealand law in his report.
    She said there were “many” problems with the report, which was being peer reviewed by Robert Fisher QC.
    Binnie relied on an ‘‘incorrect understanding’’ of a scientist’s evidence, she told MPs.
    ‘‘Justice Binnie asserts that a named scientist testified at the first trial that he had chemically enhanced the footprints and later sought to resile from this,” said Collins. ‘‘The reference to chemical enhancement was actually an error on a label attached to a fingerprint and this was explained as such by a scientist at the [2009] retrial.’’

    Collins said Binnie did not take into account the correction.

    During the re-trial, defence lawyers also asserted that the fact that evidence [from the original case] was no longer available could be interpreted adversely. Binnie wrongly assumed this was correct, Collins said. The footprint evidence was destroyed when the Bain house was burned down.

    Collins was responding to questions from Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel.

    Did Binnie get it wrong?

    If there are many problems as the Minister suggests, then it sure looks like it…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,188) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 3:04 pm

    You keep God on your side ross, you need it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    Attached is a link to the Guidelines. Binnie is not making a decision. He is giving advice. Bain is not necessarily entitled to see that advice. The Government does not have to take that advice.

    You will note that Bain is outside the guideleines and in addition to innocence he must show extraordinary circumstance — an undefined term. Collins has every right to get a second view if she has concerns. She says that she will release all reports in due course. That, I think, will be the time to applaud or condemn her.

    http://www.justice.govt.nz/services/miscarriages-of-justice/compensation-for-wrongful-conviction-and-imprisonment/Whole%20Doc%20Backgrounder.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Elaycee (4,403 comments) says:

    @Nookin: A key point missed by the Bain cheer squad is that any payment would be totally discretionary and not any starting point for negotiation. Minister Collins is totally within her rights to make any recommendation she wishes to Cabinet. And Cabinet can accept or overrule that recommendation as they see fit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Small change Elaycee. I seem to recall that the footprints were chemically enhanced in order for them to be photographed. Somebody has combed the report with more care than they combed the evidence presented at the first mistrial and that which they hid or destroyed – but that will be the core of the report no doubt.

    I think Collins is wrong about the destroyed evidence, that must always favour the defendant – the court can’t be neutral on it or the Crown are given the green light to destroy evidence that might assist the defence. In this case the Crown discarded material despite a letter from Guest warning them not to, so the list goes on. The Dunedin police threw out samples because the ‘boy’s didn’t like blood in the police station.’ They threw out the samples of blood from Robin’s clothes but kept the clothes. The Minister protests too much on their behalf for some one apparently ‘neutral.’

    Anyway, the fact remains the Minister will release the report or some other party will and then we will be all able to know it’s contents including the applicant.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Wayne91 (83) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 3:34 pm

    I think if the day of the deaths was rerun, and the police did their job according to their protocol and manual, it would have been very clear that Robin was the murderer.

    However, we cannot do that, but I do think there is still solid evidence that points to Robin Bain, and there is no solid evidence that points to David. To believe that Robin Bain was murdered, one would have to believe he stood on one leg, with the other raised waiting to be shot in the head from someone crouching below him. Crouching, but not lying on the floor, because they had to be close enough that Robin’s blood entered the barrel of the gun. Something that couldn’t be achieved by anything other than a close contact shot, and that is just one example of how unfeasible the argument that Robin was murdered is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I don’t agree Nookin. I think Collins has acted irresponsibly and shamefully by making public comments regarding Justice Binnie. He has every right to be annoyed. She not only demonstrated a complete disrespect for his position and experience, but she has also amply demonstrated her bias. She had no need to make a public statement regarding Justice Fisher’s role either, until after the matter was settled by cabinet. In doing so she has influenced both public and cabinet opinion. She is playing games and appears to be spitting the dummy because the reaction was not what she wanted, which is unfortunate for all, because now she has made whatever the result is, unsafe, and open to further action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. Jinky (188 comments) says:

    latest news on stuff is that Collins is “thinking about releasing the report”. Yet another about face for a Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    Judith

    What if she is right? Have you read the report or do you have the benefit of some divine intervention as you do with the identity of the murderer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @Elaycee, hmmm, why would the Minister be an expert on the trial evidence able to nitpick a couple of minor facts in Binnie’s report? I smell the scent of a major bureaucratic search for excuses to reject it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith Collins has every right to be annoyed with Justice Binnie. First he sends her a flawed report after charging out 700 hours at $450 an hour ,and then he complains about her in the media. Very unprofessional. He is showing a complete disrespect for a Government Minister.
    But one good thing has come out of all this. We will now get to see Binnie’s report before any decision is made on Bain’s compensation claim. Those of us who are informed re the Bain killings will be going over that report with a fine tooth comb. Every error and/or incorrect assumption will be noted and Judith Collins will be advised,though no doubt she has already found quite a few of those errors for herself, and Robert Fisher will have also.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    That search has being going for some time I think Alan Wilkinson. Hence the referral to the SG, and now debate about some ‘scientific’ evidence which fell apart for the Crown. It’s one mistake after another here, when Collin’s sought to review details she should have done so by involving both sides, she chose only to this with one side. As more material comes out so will the opportunity to point out that the Minister or her ‘advice’ is wrong. She’s attempting to argue the Crown case unfortunately – which I suppose some will say is consistent in that she’s attempted to keep one side in the dark as the Crown itself did. It’s extraordinary. I thought she was relatively tough originally, not so readily able to compromise herself and others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Jinky,
    Judith Collins may release that report this week. Just what some of those who firmly believe that David Bain is guilty wanted her to do and requested that she do.

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

    muggins

    The cost of Binnie’s review is more than $400k, so it hasn’t been a cheap exercise. The entire cost of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case cost less than $150k. Phil Goff, the then Justice Minister, seemed to take delight in the fact that he got what he wanted for a bargain. Alas, what Ellis got wasn’t justice.

    Bain cannot complain that his case hasn’t received serious attention.

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

    > She’s attempting to argue the Crown case unfortunately

    So you’re saying there’s no truth to the Crown case?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @muggins, you sure live up to your name. If you slag off your hired gun expect return fire. Any disrespect has been well-earned.

    As for the notion that you amateurs are going to find more errors than all the resources of Crown Law and the justice department – don’t you think that is teensy bit over-confident? Or do you rate your officialdom that badly?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Alan,
    How do you know that Judith Collins is not informed as to the trial evidence? Heck,even I am informed on the trial evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    Alan W… quite agree.

    Collins may be having an attack of the smarts. But she just exposed her hand and it does not look good.

    It is her report, but to give it only to one side ???? The minutae quoted by Collins was clearly inspired by a MoJ/Crtown Law/Police, line by line examination.

    But Collins is neutral. Yeah right! The disclosures by her simply confirm malfeasance on her part.

    Pity she cannot be cited for malpratice (because she acted in a political way on a “polutica”l issue) and summoned before a Law Society inquiry,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Oh, I see, another David Bain supporter getting sarky. As I have said,Judith Collins is probably pretty well informed re the retrial evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    even I am informed on the trial evidence.

    Really?  You have a transcript?  Is it online or do you have a hard copy? 

    Or are you relying on reports made by the pig-ignorant media?  No, wait, that is too harsh on pigs…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @muggins, I don’t think that argument is in your favour. Anyway, I know I am not informed in great detail. That is why juries and judges sit through weeks of evidence – and why reviewing it is a substantial and costly effort. So I will be content to wait to read the reports and make judgements accordingly.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith Collins is smart alright. Smart enough to release that report so that all us amateur sleuths can go over it with a fine tooth comb before any decision is made on the compensation claim.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Alan,what argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    F E Smith.
    If I had a copy of the retrial transcript do you really think I would admit to that on a public forum? Get real.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Pity she cannot be cited for malpratice (because she acted in a political way on a “polutica”l issue) and summoned before a Law Society inquiry,

    Well, she has a current practising certificate as a Barrister, so you could make a complaint if you wanted to do so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Kanz.
    Re that fictitious nose bleed. May I remind you that no blood from Robin was found on that rifle. I guess it must have gone the same way as his fingerprints.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    If I had a copy of the retrial transcript do you really think I would admit to that on a public forum? Get real.

    Why not?  If it was honestly obtained then I see no problem with admitting that you have a transcript, and much benefit to your argument.  

    Are you refraining from saying that you do not have a transcript?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    “But Collins is neutral. Yeah right! The disclosures by her simply confirm malfeasance on her part.

    Pity she cannot be cited for malpratice (because she acted in a political way on a “polutica”l issue) and summoned before a Law Society inquiry,”

    She is not acting as a lawyer. She is a member of cabinet and cabinet has the responsibility of making the decision.

    The juror pool on this thread seems pretty damn thin!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Alan Wilkinson (1,885 comments) says:

    @muggins, your argument that Collins may be as well-informed as yourself seems to me, as well as to FES obviously, somewhat less than compelling.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    F E Smith.
    If the retrial transcript was honestly obtained by someone and then that person passed it on to someone else,could the person he passed it on to be accused of dishonestly obtaining it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Alan,
    Judith Collins would have been able to read the retrial transcript if she wanted to,I am sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    F E S…
    I bow to your superior info/knowledge..
    …and have suggested it to an irascible barrister buddy.
    He likes the idea, and thinks her self-disclosed actions unconscionable ….but…..

    However, one hears that an equally irascible knight of the realm “may twist her tail” …….. whatever that means..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I know a barrister who can’t wait to get a look at Binnie’s report .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    muggins,

    well, now you have me intrigued!!!  I wouldn’t think there would be a problem there at all for the end receiver.  Emphasis on the word ‘honestly’, which I would hope we can conflate with the word ‘lawfully’. 

    EDIT: Flipper,

    I am not saying that any complaint would succeed!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  156. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    I believe Otago University has had an honestly obtained copy of the retrial transcript given to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  157. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    Slightly off topic but I think this Guy’s reasoning resembles some of the reasoning on this thread

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/music/8071121/Morrissey-lays-into-royals

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  158. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    I believe Otago University has had an honestly obtained copy of the retrial transcript given to them.

    Really?  Any idea whether it is available for public use?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  159. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    F E Smith.
    Hmm. I still don’t think I will confirm or deny whether or not I have a copy of the retrial transcript,but if I did have one it would be one that was obtained lawfully.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  160. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    F E Smith.
    Re Otago University. I have no idea. You would have to ask them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  161. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘However, one hears that an equally irascible knight of the realm “may twist her tail” …….. whatever that means..’

    Judging by her actions today that barrister may well have locked onto her tail – after a few preliminary bites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  162. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Any university that holds a copy of the trial transcripts, has them for research purposes for the members of the institution. Should any member take that copy and distribute it, or allow other people to view and use it, would be breaching the rules, and that ‘student’, or whatever their title, could be reprimanded. If a person has viewed it in such a manner, then they have used an illegal copy, which amply demonstrates their principles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  163. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Judith.

    I figure that your hero David may not be receiving his Xmas present this year. I have just seen David’s mate having a grizzle on TV so maybe he also suspects his team has lost. I do feel sorry for you as you obviously believe that he is innocent whereas I do not.

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

    Falafulu Fisi

    Someone has started a Bayesian Network example for the Bain case here http://ddnum.com/articles/davidbain.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  165. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RF: you seriously need to grow up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  166. big bruv (14,122 comments) says:

    Time will tell if Binnie’s report is flawed. I suspect that it is.

    However for me that is not the issue arising out of this mess, what really stands out for me is that once again we see the legal profession at their precious best.

    It seems that Binnie has packed a sad because somebody he considers to be his inferior (witness the “tax lawyer” sledge by Binnie) has dared to question his decision. Like most in the legal world they live a sheltered life and simply cannot handle anybody questioning their decisions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  167. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    Re that retrial transcript. As I said,I believe that the Otago University was given a copy that was lawfully obtained and I am sure that they would be following the rules as to who could have access to it.
    I will neither confirm or deny that I

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  168. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Link went down.
    I will neither confirm or deny whether or not I have a copy of that report but I can confirm that I have never seen the copy that I understand was given to Otago University.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  169. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Judy Judy Judy.. In my best Tony Curtis voice.

    My sorrow for you came from the heart. I am now crushed and will never look at another.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  170. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    No problem Muggins. A simple search of the data base will allow the administration to see who has accessed it and conduct an investigation as to who might have copied it and given that copy to other people. I can furnish them with a list of names of people most likely to have done that. Will be an interesting exercise to see if there are any matches. The staff aren’t all that busy this time of year, so investigating breaches of copyright will be a welcome distraction for them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  171. Dirty Rat (383 comments) says:

    Ha ha Bruv

    lose that car salesman job and don the wig

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  172. Elaycee (4,403 comments) says:

    A simple search of the data base will allow the administration to see who has accessed it and conduct an investigation as to who might have copied it and given that copy to other people.

    What really gives me the shits about this entire mess, is the propensity by elements of the Bain cheer squad to rush off and lay formal complaints / threaten legal action about any aspect of these mass murders that does not fit their own version of events or the path they want this saga to take.

    Now we have the ludicrous suggestion that Otago University may be asked to identify who has had access to a bloody transcript of one of the trials. How pathetic.

    No wonder so many people get thoroughly pissed off with the litigious Bain cheer squad. It’s not hard to understand why that’s the case for an increasing number of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  173. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    The source of some of the “incorrect facts” has been identified. No prizes for guessing. I am sure there is plenty more to come: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853618 See sixth paragraph:

    “Justice Binnie appears to have assumed to be correct Mr Karam’s submission that the adverse inferences should be drawn against the Crown case on the basis of evidence that is no longer available.

    “This is incompatible with the onus of proof being on Mr Bain in this particular case because this is, in fact, a request for Cabinet to use its discretion – and that’s very clearly wrong.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  174. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Judith,

    Any university that holds a copy of the trial transcripts, has them for research purposes for the members of the institution. Should any member take that copy and distribute it, or allow other people to view and use it, would be breaching the rules, and that ‘student’, or whatever their title, could be reprimanded.

    Which rules are you talking about?

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

    Kent

    I’m staggered. The Bain supporters on here assured us that Binnie would do his own research and would have nothing to do with Karam, despite the fact Binnie was given Karam’s books. Now we learn that Binnie swallowed one of Karam’s arguments, a false one as it turned out. I imagine there’ll be further disappointments.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  176. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    assured us that Binnie would do his own research and would have nothing to do with Karam,

    Really?  How could Binnie have conducted a proper investigation without speaking to Karam or looking at his research?  That would seem to me to be a basic given, just as it would seem necessary to speak to Police officers involved in the investigation.  

    Or was it supposed to be based solely on trial evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  177. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    You’re ever hopeful Kent, however you don’t seem to be able to do anything other than underestimate your opponent’s strength and determination – or indeed you’re only absorbing one side of the argument, the one that suits you.

    Still clutching at straws ross. You need to listen for the responses and I feel quite assured the Minister or those advising her are dreaming as they look for anyway out. Petty tactics to pre-empt the release of the report with a one-sided attack, but to this point par from the course – it only strengthens other avenues if they prove necessary.

    How bizarre that a Minister of the Crown should be drawn into such stupid games. She has gone from a position of thinking she could unpick the report from afar without the public knowing the contents to now be trying to argue selective pieces, this of course after advice from the SG.

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

    What were Binnies instructions from Figjam regarding the scope of the enquiry?Anyone know exactly what his instructions were?

    If we know that , its going to be relatively simple to figure out whether the report ,commissioned and owned by the Government , is relative to what he was asked to do.

    If he has not followed what he was commissioned to do the report is void.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  179. Longknives (4,853 comments) says:

    Was talking in the office today about the Bain thing. My mate asked “Do Bain supporters actually believe in his innocence or are they just feral Anti-Authority types who will always side against Police?”

    It got me thinking- I don’t honestly think any sane person could read the link I posted way back at 9:08am this morning and still put their hand on their heart and tell me David is “innocent”. So come now Bain supporters- Do you really,really believe David Bain is “innocent”? Or are you just still pissed off about that speeding ticket you got once??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  180. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    Really? How could Binnie have conducted a proper investigation without speaking to Karam or looking at his research? That would seem to me to be a basic given, just as it would seem necessary to speak to Police officers involved in the investigation.

    I respect that you are probably a lawyer, based on your self-representations in that respect. On the contrary, Joe Karam has no qualifications in law or any area related to the Justice system. In addition he has shown himself to be biased and partial in relation to his dealings with David Bain, driven I suspect by a deal he has, which was published on page 20 of David and Goliath, a business deal, in which he would receive half of all proceeds in relation to the Bain case. On the basis of both his lack of qualifications and past experience I have no confidence whatsoever in the ability of Joe Karam to provide a shred of credible evidence. As an outside, Binnie is not aware of any of this, and it is apparent he has been drawn in by the apparently sincere and informed approach that Karam takes to the case. Unfortunately, while this has been good for Karam in the short term, in relation to Binnie’s report, it is apparent that it is not going to work with the current Minister of Justice, who also happens to be a lawyer, and one who is not prepared to be indulgent with either the law or with taxpayer money.

    Karam would have done his cause much more benefit by stepping back and letting someone else do the work, but alas, we know, it is not in his nature to do so, and often people spoil their own game by not letting go.

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

    Really? How could Binnie have conducted a proper investigation without speaking to Karam or looking at his research?

    FES

    Quite easily really, proper research is not completed by just steadily throwing handful after handful of mud into clear water. Proper research is conducted with original thought not standing back and sniping at others work, proper research is not standing repeating “what if, what if” until enough disciples turn up and start chanting ” what if, what if’ . What you end up with is not research but a cult.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  182. Dazzaman (1,144 comments) says:

    big bruv

    It seems that Binnie has packed a sad because somebody he considers to be his inferior (witness the “tax lawyer” sledge by Binnie) has dared to question his decision. Like most in the legal world they live a sheltered life and simply cannot handle anybody questioning their decisions.

    Yes, a condescending attitude throughout along with name dropping of the Privy Council decision author…it all seems pretty catty to me. Being challenged by a “…tax lawyer…”, a right wing female one too!! Must be galling for him. Looking forward more to Fishers report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  183. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    If he has not followed what he was commissioned to do, the report is void.

    Absolutely. I think that is what we are seeing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  184. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘Quite easily really, proper research is not completed by just steadily throwing handful after handful of mud into clear water. Proper research is conducted with original thought not standing back and sniping at others work, proper research is not standing repeating “what if, what if” until enough disciples turn up and start chanting ” what if, what if’ . What you end up with is not research but a cult.’

    Exactly what the Minister has done Pauleastbay.
    But now she has been forced into the open.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  185. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    It is difficult to set aside one’s existing opinions about the guilt or innocence of David Bain. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders have made their minds up either way and that no further argument will changes those opinions.
    We are faced with some unalterable facts that are independent of Bain’s guilt or innocence:
    1. David Bain has been found not guilty.
    2. There will be no further trial or appeal: he will remain ‘not guilty’.
    3. He is entitled to apply for compensation.
    4. The decision on compensation rests with the Cabinet.
    5. Cabinet ministers need to justify decisions to the electorate.

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

    > How could Binnie have conducted a proper investigation without speaking to Karam

    I didn’t say Binnie wasn’t allowed to speak to Karam! But I didn’t realise he would swallow Karam’s nonsense either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  187. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    PEB,

    while I agree with your point re clarity, I disagree with that such would be the inevitable result of speaking to Karam and considering his interpretation of the evidence. That would be no different from speaking to Police, who would give their own interpretation of the evidence. I am certainly not so naive as to accept that Police would give an unbiased, impartial view, and even if one felt that their view was correct, they remain a party in an adversarial system, indeed they are the party making the allegations, so they are presumed not to be impartial.

    Hence, natural justice would require that Binnie either talk to both or neither.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  188. AG (1,830 comments) says:

    I believe Otago University has had an honestly obtained copy of the retrial transcript given to them.

    I have never heard of such a thing, and I work in the law faculty there. And if it did exist, I cannot see any reason on earth why it would not be freely accessible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  189. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘Kent Parker (398) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
    If he has not followed what he was commissioned to do, the report is void.

    Absolutely. I think that is what we are seeing.’

    Try again, the details of what constituted ‘extraordinary circumstances’ needed to be supported. If it wasn’t, people like yourself would be mocking the report, just as the Minister with egg on her face chose to do in camera.

    I hope it’s not too obvious but I sort of enjoy all this floundering about in panic.

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

    Nostalgia

    Sorry mate you’re the one that appears to be L.Ron Hubbarding here.

    Surely with all the experts on this subject someone must have the terms that his report was to follow.

    My experience with report writing for clients is , they will not pay if the report does not follow their instructions, its been said on here for weeks, Bain will get a million dollars perhaps, (he’ll actually see fuck all of it, Karem will pocket most of it),. Now to many a million is a lot, in the scheme of things its bugger all but the Government would be remiss , any government, if it paid for a report that did not follow instructions.

    As for Government business this whole thing is fuck all as well, they want it to go away, but there has to be a degree of fiscal responsibility involved. If Binnie has written fiction and its obvious the report should not be accepted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  191. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    F E Smith

    ‘Hence, natural justice would require that Binnie either talk to both or neither.’

    What could be truer.

    Collins justified her earlier decision on the basis that David Bain might not like what was in the report, how very considerate of her. I guess after all she was assisting him, what a kind soul.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  192. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    The problem surely is that the government is trying to straddle the dual role of party and adjudicator. As adjudicator it asked a respected jurist to prepare a report. Now that report has been written the government has slipped into the role of a party, with Collins even going so far as to canvas aspects of the original evidence in Parliament today.

    I’ve been critical of Collins over this, but in retrospect at least as much criticism is due Simon Power. He charged Binnie with the job of reviewing the case and left open the possibility of him finding for or against Bain’s claim for compensation. In so doing he raised the understandable expectation for many people that the government would simply consider the report and arrive at what it felt was a suitable figure for compensation – whether that was nothing or millions.

    If the government wished, in the event of a finding that compensation was payable, to argue the case against then it could have appointed an independent adjudicator – perhaps a panel of retired judges. Or it could have retained the appearance of impartiality by commissioning two reports, one specifically tasked to argue the case for and one against, and acted merely as the decider, giving reasons for so doing as in a judge-alone trial.

    While not obliged to do this, it would have removed the apparent conflict of interest wherein a Minister who is the decision maker begins arguing one side of a matter on which she should strive to be seen as an impartial adjudicator.

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

    Hence, natural justice would require that Binnie either talk to both or neither.

    FES

    Primary evidence, secondary evidence – what were you taught was the best?

    Karems “research” – I don’t think the law Lords have a number that goes that high.

    I also find it strange that there is any necessity for Binnie to speak to the police, karem or the cardigan kid. Guilt or not was decided on the facts placed before the High Court, I am unaware that the Privy Council ever found it necessary to speak directly with Trevor the witness when making case law down through the years.

    The difference between the police and the cardigan kid is that the police are restricted to stating what is already on files and has been presented, Bain when speaking in private with Binnie can state anything he likes, anything, and is not subject to any cross examination at all. There have been several comments on here regards natural justice, well letting the the likely recipient of the monies have unfettered access to the guy he will make the recommendation is fucking ludicrous
    .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  194. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (398) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    YOu are incredible in the manner you report Karam’s contract with Bain. The contract is in fact an extremely generous one on Karam’s behalf in which is gives David Bain 50% of any profits Karam makes from books etc. It is not a two way contract, Bain does not have any agreement to give Karam 50% of anything he makes regarding the case etc. You have had this pointed out to you before but insist on repeating it in the manner you do, to mislead people and belittle Karam by falsely representing the details. Karam made the contract so that David would benefit from the books he wrote about the case. The emphasis on ‘he’ being Karam ‘wrote’, and could have kept all the profits but shared them.

    How many other things have you either miscomprehended or are misrepresenting, I wonder?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  195. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    This is a beaut Paul:

    ‘Sorry mate you’re the one that appears to be L.Ron Hubbarding here.’

    I think fiscal responsibility would have been for the Crown to ‘retire’ on the question of the retrial. They had the chance then, as they had before trying this one-sided dissection.

    There has been a lot of negative talk on this subject about civil lawyers, even from F E Smith. But I’m confident most advice from a civil lawyer on this to the Crown would have been cut and run, settle – even now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  196. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    One or two slightly diversionary comments:
    • I read Andrew Geddes’s comments on Pundit. They were dated December 11.
    • On December 12, Binnie fired a barrage (That included both airburst and delayed fusing munitions :) ) at the Minister et al(aka, MoJ, SG and Police etc) that appeared to give Andrew a C minus.
    • So Andrew, following Binnie of 12 December, what say you now???
    • And one nasty after-thought to throw in the mix……
    • Fisher may be a former Judge. But opinions on him within the legal fraternity are probably as much polarised as those on Bain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  197. Kent Parker (451 comments) says:

    Well it looks like this report is down the dunny. Looks like justice will prevail. Don’t forget the sign the petition: No compensation for David Bain: http://davidbain.counterspin.co.nz/node/add/signature

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

    Nostalgia

    Your simple world view gladdens my jaded heart prior to Xmas.

    Whats to cut and run from?

    You appear to forget that after bain was found not guilty he walked free. he applied for compensation, the Government could have told him after going though some procedures to “fuck off” an count himself lucky, but they didn’t , instead , and christ knows why this plan was hatched by Figjam Power.

    So you are seeing open Government herebelieve it or not but like I commented above , if the report writer has not done his job as instructed someone else may have to come in and complete it, no different from a botched plumbing.

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

    > settle – even now

    Sure, why not. But first David has to tell the truth. Seems a fair deal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  200. F E Smith (3,307 comments) says:

    Nostalgia,

    I don’t have any negative opinion of civil lawyers, I merely think that criminal appeals should be heard by lawyers who have a significant background in criminal practice. Sadly that isn’t the case. Personally I have no issue with Mr Binnie’s background, nor do I think it disqualifies him in any way in this matter.

    PEB,

    I would have thought that a review such as Binnie’s (and was it you who mentioned, correctly, about the terms of reference?) would have had to go wider than simply the evidence in the case. However, I do accept that it was open for him to merely look at the trial evidence and report. As you note, that would have meant no need whatsoever to speak to either side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  201. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Judith,
    My understanding is that the copy of the retrial transcript that I believe the Otago University has was donated to them by a person who obtained it legitimately and had finished with it. I will neither confirm or deny that I have seen a copy of the retrial transcript. But I can confirm that I have never contacted anyone at the Otago University and that no-one from that University has shown me the copy that they have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  202. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Kent Parker (399) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
    when are you going to remove all the names that have been signed twice and sometimes three times on your petition? Many of the names that appear multiple times are also members of the JRFB facebook page? When are you also going to remove the names of people whose names and addresses have been used, but state they have never signed the petition and wouldn’t? Just asking :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  203. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Longknives. 7.37pm. I think it was Lord Nelson who held his telescope to his blind eye and could see no ships. Reminds me of the Bain supporters. It’s a cult thing similar to Waco, Texas.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  204. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    No one here is ever going to change his or her mind about Bain’s guilt (or innocence, if you prefer). It seems clear enough that the government will refuse compensation, and in doing so will satisfy a substantial proportion of the electorate. Job done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  205. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay:

    The difference between the police and the cardigan kid is that the police are restricted to stating what is already on files and has been presented, Bain when speaking in private with Binnie can state anything he likes…

    Please don’t take this as disagreement disguised as a question – it’s a genuine question. In an informal inquiry such as this, not restricted by the terms of reference solely to the evidence presented to a court and not about determing guilt or evidence, surely anyone interviewed by the report writer can say whatever they wish?

    I haven’t of course, ever sat in on a conversation between police and an official inquirer, but have never known police to be shy of sharing their theories – whether supported by evidence or not – on backgroud with journalists, for instance.

    An officer here in WA has managed to get the government sued by claiming to journalists that a barrister – later found not guilty – was the “prime and only suspect” in his wife’s murder years before they’d gathered enough evidence to proceed to trial.

    Picturing them being shy and retiring talking to Binnie is just stretching my imagination a little, unless the restrictions to which you refer have the weight of law or internal police rules?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  206. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Simply being pragmatic Paul and others.
    Why spend 10 million and climbing when in 2009 the amount would have been 2 to 4 million.
    Rather than that a horse with 3 losses in a row is still having money placed on it. Off to the knacker’s yard with this failed investigation. Or maybe crusher could arrange for it to be crushed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  207. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    AG
    My understanding is that a copy of the retrial transcript was donated to the Otago University. It is possible I may have the wrong University. Perhaps you could ask around just to make absolutely sure it isn’t there. It would have been donated over a year ago,maybe nearer two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  208. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (219) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
    yeah, sure, but its a bit late, you’ve already said too much. Oh well, never mind, the database will reveal all links. ;-)

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

    correctly, about the terms of reference?) would have had to go wider than simply the evidence in the case

    If he is / has gone and listened to opinions and has formed a theory on talking to all and sundry, why not talk to Muggins and Nostalgia. There has to be a boundary – the old opinions and arseholes comes to mind here.

    I’m still waiting to see if anyone has the terms of reference for the report but it seems Stuff answered it for moi http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  210. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘mikenmild (5,959) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
    No one here is ever going to change his or her mind about Bain’s guilt (or innocence, if you prefer). It seems clear enough that the government will refuse compensation, and in doing so will satisfy a substantial proportion of the electorate. Job done.’

    And you predict mike, following tha,t it will be over, even after nearly 2 decades?
    Put some whisky in that milk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  211. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (2,994) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
    correctly, about the terms of reference?) would have had to go wider than simply the evidence in the case

    If he is / has gone and listened to opinions and has formed a theory on talking to all and sundry, why not talk to Muggins and Nostalgia. There has to be a boundary – the old opinions and arseholes comes to mind here.

    I’m still waiting to see if anyone has the terms of reference for the report but it seems Stuff answered it for moi http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8070186/Bain-report-author-went-well-beyond-terms-of-reference.

    That’s one version Paul, that’s for sure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  212. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    Nostalgia
    The idea that the Cabinet will vote to give David Bain millions of dollars seems a bit unlikely, to put it mildly. His guilt or innocence is now simply a matter of historical debate, and will be for the foreseeable future.

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

    Rex

    Picturing them being shy and retiring talking to Binnie is just stretching my imagination a little, unless the restrictions to which you refer have the weight of law or internal police rules?

    Absolutely , most coppers are shy retiring souls and you have to drag an opinion out of them with a marlin hook, but what I was trying to get across is that in a private conversation between the two of us I can make outragous claims, totally unfounded and I wont have to prove anything, except me and Kate Moss which is true, but there can be no creedence put on my private conversation unless its open to scrutiny. This applies to both sides of this , the police and Bain. So, if Binnie has given creedence to what was said in these private “yarns he is foolish in the extreme, and having read the Stuff article above this appears to be one of the criticisims, he has taken people to task with no chance of rebuttle.
    ,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  214. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Christ Muggins. Be very afraid. The witch smeller Judith has you in her sights. Watch out for a Spinster.. Late 40s, thick glasses, hair pulled back into a bun, thin lips, the odd raised facial mole with a hair growing out of it, very conservative clothing wearing comfortable shoes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  215. Reid (16,630 comments) says:

    It got me thinking- I don’t honestly think any sane person could read the link I posted way back at 9:08am this morning and still put their hand on their heart and tell me David is “innocent”. So come now Bain supporters- Do you really,really believe David Bain is “innocent”? Or are you just still pissed off about that speeding ticket you got once??

    Longknives I don’t understand why you and many like you appear to imagine that this case hinges on whether or not Bain did it. It’s not about that and never has been. It’s about whether or not proper due process has been followed. See, in law, what matters is whether or not you’re legally culpable, which is NOT the same thing as whether or not you did it. Sure, the law purports that one is the same as the other, but it’s not.

    So you see, you and others like you who endlessly try second-guessing people like the various juries who have sat through the entire trial and others who have spent literally thousands of hours on analysing every single tiny minutia, are wasting your time in the same way people who post link after link to sites which purport to “prove” one position or the other on AGW, are wasting your time, like a broken pencil. It’s pointless.

    The reality is, if due process has not been followed and legally Bain should not have been committed, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHETHER OR NOT HE DID IT. It doesn’t. You might hallucinate this is the critical issue, but you’d be wrong. This issue is about whether the system designed to prosecute murder has worked properly in this case, yes or no. And that’s a systemic question: i.e. did all the mechanisms in the system work as they should, from whoa to go. Well did they? Apparently, they didn’t.

    Case closed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  216. flipper (4,194 comments) says:

    I have refrained from any sort of ad hominem comment (But at this time of night my patience is at an end.) on some contributors who are simply not prepared to accept that sometimes police, Judges and the System screw up. That is why there is an appeals process which ended when the PC ordered the requested retrial (on 8 substantial grounds, not technical) and gave Collins. D a nudge that he should let it go.

    But Collins. D, now a judge (funny how such folk always seem to come from a similar background. Remember that nasty bit of work, Morris, who prosecuted/persecuted Thomas ? ?) chose to ignore the hint. His decision cost the country millions.

    Now we have a bunch of hairy arsed amateurs ( like Kent and Muggins), and one or two folk who have had more than a passing acquaintance with the gang in blue, who act for all the world like the AGW/CC/Warmista cult followers. They cannot help but dig themselves into a hole every single day by telling porkies, half-truths, and downright lies. It is that bunch of crazies who describe the scientific giants (not downy chinned academics and bureaucrats) who question the teachings of their cult, “deniers”. They are the gang that would have dug the pits at Auschwitz or Buchenwald. They would have seen A A Thomas hang.
    Lord help them: They know not what they do!

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

    > I would have thought that a review such as Binnie’s would have had to go wider than simply the evidence in the case.

    So Binnie could well have interviewed Messrs Buckley and Taylor about Bain’s alleged plan to rape a jogger while doing his paper run. And maybe we can find in Binnie’s report a reference to Ms Koch who was allegedly told by Arawa, not long before the murders, that David was intimidating his family with a gun. I’d be disappointed if these people were ignored by Binnie who is, after all, scrupulously fair.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  218. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘mikenmild (5,963) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
    Nostalgia
    The idea that the Cabinet will vote to give David Bain millions of dollars seems a bit unlikely, to put it mildly. His guilt or innocence is now simply a matter of historical debate, and will be for the foreseeable future.’

    You seriously think that it would be all over in such an event?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  219. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Documents given to Binnie, including 2 Karam books – appears there was plenty to balance any information from the books.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6368057/Judge-asks-for-Karam-books-to-decide-compo-claim

    “Documents released under the Official Information Act show material provided to Binnie includes a joint report by the Police Complaints Authority and Police Commissioner from 1997, an application to the governor-general for exercise of the Royal perogative of mercy by Bain in 1998, the Ministry of Justice and Sir Thomas Thorp reports on that application, court records and decisions, submissions on the compensation claim, and the claim itself.”

    Perhaps most disturbing of old media clips is this one, where Simon Power states:

    “The compensation framework requires claimants to prove their innocence, and at a minimum, under Cabinet guidelines, Bain will need to establish his innocence on the balance of probabilities.

    “But because his case falls outside the guidelines, something more is required that demonstrates that the circumstances are extraordinary, and Justice Binnie will decide the best process for assessing Mr Bain’s claim against this test.”

    I thought Collins was complaining because Binnie didn’t keep to her assigned processes? According to Simon Power, the process was up to Binnie to decide.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/local-news/5978872/Foreign-judge-to-assess-Bain-compo-claim

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  220. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    Can I make a suggestion. How about David Bain front up and answer a few questions. Of course it would be no point asking if he murdered anyone,he is never going to admit to that.
    But one question could be
    “David,were you wearing those glasses that were found in your room on the Sunday and the days prior as you told your lawyer?”
    Now if David were to say “No I wasn’t” then he could have the following testimony read to him.
    David’s aunt ,giving evidence.
    Q. At some time there was a discussion about the glasses.
    A. Yes, later after David got up and had some breakfast[this was on the Tuesday morning after the murders] we were sitting in the lounge,David,Heidi and myself and David sort of rubbed his eyes like that,you know,and I said “Oh,are your eyes troubling you dear?”
    Q. When you say rubbing his eyes your’e [demonstrating”
    a. Yes ,it was sort of a movement like that ,just as though his eyes were troubling him. And I said “Are your eyes troubling you dear? and he said “Yes they are a bit,I really need my glasses”. And I went to get up and go and get them saying,you know ,”Where are they?” and he explained his own glasses had been broken the previous Thursday when he was leaving his music lesson and I asked him how he had been managing in the meantime and he said he had been wearing an old pair of Margaret’s glasses.
    Q. Just on that,did he indicate how much assistance or lack of assistance they gave?
    A. Yes,he said they weren’t perfect but they got him by. And then he said his own glasses would be ready at the opticians on the Thursday and could we perhaps organise to have then collected and I called Bob in.
    David’s uncle,giving evidence.
    I was called into the lounge where my wife had been talking to David and was informed that would I GO AND PICK UP THE GLASSES WHICH i

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

    > His decision cost the country millions.

    What nonsense. Karam and Co, as you know, went to the Pivy Council because they didn’t want a re-trial. They asked the Privy Council to acquit but they were told, after just 5 minutes of delibrating, that they’d have to face the music. Bain could have testified and told the truth, but I guess that was expecting too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  222. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    flipper.. 9.01pm. Although part of your post was directed at my former blue suit I cracked up laughing. Thanks mate you just made my night. Must admit I would be first to hang onto A A Thomas’s feet but then I go way back to when the case was current.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  223. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘RF (522) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
    Christ Muggins. Be very afraid. The witch smeller Judith has you in her sights. Watch out for a Spinster.. Late 40s, thick glasses, hair pulled back into a bun, thin lips, the odd raised facial mole with a hair growing out of it, very conservative clothing wearing comfortable shoes.’

    Even snails leave trails.

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

    > You seriously think that it would be all over in such an event?

    Well, Karam will whine like a dog shut outside but he’ll quickly tire of it. It’s not like he’s got any other option. Of course, David could ask his relatives for money, or maybe ask Joe Karam, who has done rather nicely out of this mass murder.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  225. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,195) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 9:07 pm

    What a load of rubbish. The Privy Counsel had to grant a retrial because that is what was asked for by Bain’s team. They made it clear that as the request was for a retrial that is what they had to grant but if the team had applied differently, then a retrial would not have been granted and he would have received accquital. It was well publicised at the time

    Later the team applied to the MOJ in NZ for the re-trial to be cancelled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  226. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    Yes, it will be all over, bar the shouting. WFIW, I predict that the government will decline to compensate David Bain. Bain’s supporters will howl and howl, many books will be written and movies made, but no political moves will ever be made to reverse that decision. It will become a matter for historical debate, that’s all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  227. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    A little gremlin attacked me.
    Would I go and pick up the glasses which I did.
    Q.Was anything said about the accused’s glasses,apart from that,or his eyes.
    A. He had been talking to my wife and my wife repeated to me that his glasses had been broken and that he had been wearing a pair of his mother’s glasses which he said were not 100% ,but were sufficient for him to get by with.

    Then,having had that testimony read to him David could again be asked “Do you now admit you were wearing that pair of your mother’s glasses that were found in your room”.
    Would he still deny he was wearing them?
    Would he say he couldn’t remember having that conversation?
    Would he admit to wearing them?

    I am sure Judith Collins will have read the testimony of David’s aunt and uncle. No wonder she is having Binnie’s report peer reviewed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  228. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,196) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Considering the obvious conflict of interest, lack of balance and other demonstrations this week by Ms Collins, there are plenty of options still open should she deny the current request. Ms Collins behaviour and statements have rendered any decision she makes ‘unsafe’.

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

    They are the gang that would have dug the pits at Auschwitz or Buchenwald. They would have seen A A Thomas hang.
    Lord help them: They know not what they do!

    pure gold flipper- I have spent some time with David Morris and I have met Thomas and I know who deserved to be prosecuted on that one.

    The “gang in blue” brilliant

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  230. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ. 9.10pm. The trouble that the snail trails are not obvious until the morning so you have to go out at night and track them down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  231. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    ‘mikenmild (5,965) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
    Yes, it will be all over, bar the shouting. WFIW, I predict that the government will decline to compensate David Bain. Bain’s supporters will howl and howl, many books will be written and movies made, but no political moves will ever be made to reverse that decision. It will become a matter for historical debate, that’s all.’

    I like your simple naivety, it sort of suits you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  232. mikenmild (11,627 comments) says:

    I’d prefer the term realism, even cynicism if you must. The Cabinet makes political decisions. There is no political momentum to give David Bain millions of dollars, because it is not a decision that could be sold to the voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  233. muggins (3,800 comments) says:

    RF.
    I reckon she might have attacked my computer and put my caps lock on and tried to abort that post .

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

    > The Privy Counsel had to grant a retrial because that is what was asked for by Bain’s team.

    No, would you like me to remind you again that Karam and Co went to England and asked the PC to acquit Bain? The law lords took 5 minutes to decide that that was a non-starter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  235. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    I think that you’re struggling with that argument mikenmild. Also with your view that it will disappear.

    You might have noticed RF, that despite best efforts the snail is unable to be tracked down unless you look in a Dunedin grave yard.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  236. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Muggins. 9.24pm. A tricky Mrs. Doubtfire. The Bain clan will go extreme lengths to take over the earth. Watch for the crooked little finger on the left hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  237. RF (1,442 comments) says:

    Nostalgia. 9.32pm. It’s a pity that Bain supporters do not take the time to visit the family plot. Too many home truths !!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  238. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    “What a load of rubbish. The Privy Counsel had to grant a retrial because that is what was asked for by Bain’s team. They made it clear that as the request was for a retrial that is what they had to grant but if the team had applied differently, then a retrial would not have been granted and he would have received accquital. It was well publicised at the time

    Later the team applied to the MOJ in NZ for the re-trial to be cancelled.”
    Judith, please quote the specific passage of the PC decision where they said that they would have acquitted had that been requested. You see, I cannot find anything remotely resembling such a statement.

    This is as close as they got

    “The order of the Board for a retrial does not of course restrict the duty of the
    Crown to decide whether a retrial now would be in the public interest. As
    to that the Board has heard no submissions and expresses no opinion.”

    They went on to say that it is not a function of an Appellate Court to pass judgment on guilt or innocence in the absence of any argument. The Bain team went back to the PC on a stay application and the PC wouldn’t go there.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  239. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    @Pauleastbay: Ah, I see, thanks.

    @Reid:

    …whether or not Bain did it. It’s not about that and never has been. It’s about whether or not proper due process has been followed…

    This issue is about whether the system designed to prosecute murder has worked properly in this case, yes or no. And that’s a systemic question: i.e. did all the mechanisms in the system work as they should, from whoa to go. Well did they? Apparently, they didn’t.

    Case closed.

    Precisely. The blurring of the difference between guilt/innocence and systemic failings (by everyone from media to Minister) is one part of the utter confusion all this has caused, the other is, as I said earlier, the Crown (in the person of the Minister) playing the role of both defendant (against a claim arising out of that systemic failure) and judge.

    It’s possibly the worst mess in NZ criminal judicial history – certainly the highest-profile, since when Thomas was cleared the government of the day adopted more of a neutral role in terms of the compensation question. There seems to be barely anyone involved in the entire clusterf**k deserving of any credit whatsoever.

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

    > since when Thomas was cleared

    It was established that Thomas was innocent. That hasn’t been established with Bain. Quite a subtle difference, don’t you think?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  241. JohnM (7 comments) says:

    Worst post I’ve seen from you in ages DPF. Very shallow attempt to defend and promote a political hatchet job on Binnie. Collins’s handling of this does more to undermine my confidence in the govt than most stuffups because this one is malicious while Parata and others are just incompetence.
    J

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  242. BigFish (132 comments) says:

    I guess if you do commit a crime and the evidence is circumstantial, deny.
    There are plenty who would prefer to imagine a conspiracy by unseen agents over the potential guilt of one individual.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  243. BlairM (2,363 comments) says:

    BlairM I admire your frantic state, but it has clouded your view. A bit like the Minister.

    Frantic? Hardly. I’m very pleased with developments. It appears David Bain will not get a cent of taxpayer money, which is fair even if one did think it was credible for a jury to allow for reasonable doubt.

    I expect he will try and sue for the estate money now, where he may well have more of a legal case. But we will campaign against that too.

    Now we have a bunch of hairy arsed amateurs ( like Kent and Muggins), and one or two folk who have had more than a passing acquaintance with the gang in blue, who act for all the world like the AGW/CC/Warmista cult followers. They cannot help but dig themselves into a hole every single day by telling porkies, half-truths, and downright lies. It is that bunch of crazies who describe the scientific giants (not downy chinned academics and bureaucrats) who question the teachings of their cult, “deniers”. They are the gang that would have dug the pits at Auschwitz or Buchenwald. They would have seen A A Thomas hang.
    Lord help them: They know not what they do!

    LOLOL, Godwins rears its ugly head. Yeah, go on and have a big cry, ya sook. Bat away the full bladder, the blood stains, the glasses, the washing machine, the change of clothes, the newspaper, the awkward angle of the gun, the bruises and scratches on David, the 20 minute gap, the ludicrous computer message, the character witnesses and more… bat it all away and just call us a bunch of Nazis. Nice try. We’re actually a bunch of very sensible people from across the political spectrum who have looked at the actual evidence in this case and cannot for the life of us figure out how that evidence could be contorted to point to Robin as the killer. This is about justice, not conspiracy theories. Just as there was no significant evidence pointing to AA Thomas, there is precious little pointing to Robin Bain. We look at facts and reality, not concocted “what if” scenarios. Those scenarios may have been enough to sway a jury (the second time), but they don’t come anywhere close to the balance of probabilities standard currently required.

    For my part, I am 99.9% certain, based on my careful study of the evidence, that David Bain murdered his family. The other 0.1% involves Larnach’s ghost, “black hands”, and possibly space aliens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  244. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    So, what about this global warming business? Is it a crock or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  245. Manolo (14,024 comments) says:

    So, what about this global warming business? Is it a crock or not?

    It is, davinci. It is. Now tell that to the sane and balanced Nick Smith, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  246. Mark (1,489 comments) says:

    ross69 (1,198) Says:
    December 12th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
    > The Privy Counsel had to grant a retrial because that is what was asked for by Bain’s team.

    No, would you like me to remind you again that Karam and Co went to England and asked the PC to acquit Bain? The law lords took 5 minutes to decide that that was a non-starter.

    Ross lets hope you are not trying to suggest that the crown received anything but embarrassing spanking in front of the Privy Council. The crown handing of the Bain case including the police and the crown law office is far from satisfactory and Collins handling of the Binnie report would seem to suggest she takes her advice from Hekia Parata.

    What a shambles. tit for tats in the media, started no less than by a minister herself is simply amateur hour. Having the solicitor general comment on the Binnie report when in all likelihood it contained criticisms of his department makes you wonder what Collins was thinking if she was at all. I have absolutely no issue with her taking independent advice from a QC but that should have been done before she ran to the media with an attack on the credibility of a highly respected international jurist.

    DPF claims Binnie’s media statement is passionately prop Bain. Well David one suspects you must have a different copy than the rest of us if you can make that leap of logic.

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

    “Having the solicitor general comment on the Binnie report when in all likelihood it contained criticisms of his department makes you wonder what Collins was thinking if she was at all.”

    Mark, what comment has the S-G made? Can you provide a link? If Binnie has criticised the S-G, don’t you think the S-G is entitled to know what that criticism is, and is given a chance to respond?

    As for Binnie being a highly respected international jurist, how could a person in his position make such basic errors? I’d rather have a lowly no-name jurist write an accurate report.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  248. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    The ability of Kiwibloggers to pre-judge issues without any relevant information at all never ceases to amaze me. As I’ve said before, let’s save a fortune and get rid of the justice system – we can do it all here.

    In the red corner, we have a Judge who appears to have gotten a bit emotional and tearful after a night out in Geneva and made a remarkable public statement regarding his client. Has it occurred to anyone here that Collins is his client? That he is reporting to Collins in order to advise Collins on whether the Executive should exercise a discretion in favour of Bain. Has it occurred to anyone that this is not a trial and/or that this report is being paid for by the client and not by Bain? The fact that this is a matter of considerable public interest does not change that. His emotional reponse to Collins’ measured concerns is remarkable and in the circumstances quite unprofessional. Collins has expressed her concerns in a purely factual manner and yet Binnie accused his client of playing politics. That is an extraordinary response from someone who has, by all accounts, taken 3 attempts to not get it right.

    In the blue corner we have the Minister charged with sweeping up Simon Power’s fuckup. The gist of her comments that I heard yesterday was that:

    1. Binnie knew it was going to be peer-reviewed and her comments around timing indicate that Binnie is at best, being economical with the truth in asserting there had been no contact with her advisers.

    2. The shortcomings in his report meant that it provided no credible basis for cabinet to exercise its discretion in favour of Bain. If that report contains fundamental errors then Cabinet can hardly be expected to rely on its conclusion. Fundamental errors caste doubt upon the entirety, including the conclusion.

    What exactly was Collins meant to do? Take Binnie’s report to Cabinet, in which case, what would she be saying to her cabinet colleagues?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  249. Nookin (3,453 comments) says:

    “I have absolutely no issue with her taking independent advice from a QC but that should have been done before she ran to the media with an attack on the credibility of a highly respected international jurist.”

    Have you got that sequence right, Mark? Collins referred that matter to Fisher and was condemned for trying to manipulate a situation to her own way of thinking. She did not attack Binnie. She said there were errors of fact and law in the report. Binnie is the one who has since attacked her personally. Collins was very reticent about her actions but in the face of a nasty media campaign has let loose with some snippets of information showing why she is concerned. She may well end up looking bad but at least wait for both reports and consider the contents before frothing at the mouth. Ask yourself what the public reaction would be to a significant payment to Bain based on a flawed report. Fisher may well say that there are errors but they do not undermine the thrust of the report. Equally, he may suggest that Binnie re-consider some aspects of his report in the light of Fisher’s comments on corrected legal or factual matters.

    Binnie has virtually disqualified himself from that process now. Collins’ comments have not been so polarising. The fact that she has been forced to explain what she has done, in the face of some quite nasty personal comment, simply illustrates the depth of feeling on this matter and the fact that she was in a no-win situation. She is damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t. The very sad thing about all this is that she has been damned before anyone really knows what she has done, why she has done it and whether it has been justified.

    “Ran to the media” ! Come on. At least pay some lip service to fact. The media were all over her like a rash demanding answers. Her initial comment was very circumspect.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  250. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/crime/news/article.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10853675&ref=rss

    Confirms finding of innocent and identifies destruction of evidence as extraordinary circs

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853728

    ombudmdsman requests urgent copy

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/123305/ombudsman-treating-bain-report-complaints-with-urgency

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  251. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Collins has played the media, and made serious mistakes. Her issues with Judge Binnie and his report should have been discussed with him, in private. Regardless of whether she was his client, she fired the first shots to a person with high standing, and great experience at a time when it was not necessary for the public to know. Against his experience she is a mere pleb, and should have considered that degree of respect before she began the game she is playing. Instead of keeping these details for when the descision was made, she made public comment to the media, inflaming the issue, and I suspect wanting to see how the public was feeling before making her decision.

    A comment Ms Collins made to reporters yesterday that feature on TV3 last night summed up the kind of ‘bitch’ she is. She sent a message to David Bain, along the lines of he should not count his chickens too soon, as there were things in the report he would not like to read. Since when should a person, the Minister of Justice, send such a personal message to a person with ‘free’ unconvicted status, and applicant for compensation, via the media in such a public manner? In doing so in the manner in which she spoke, Ms Collins revealled her contempt for Bain, and can no longer be considered as rational regarding this topic. She is playing games, is serious unhinged on this issue and should be removed. Allow John Key to deal with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  252. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    John Key has dealt with it. Confirms the peer review supports Binnie’s findings, and that the report will be released today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  253. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    Judith

    You make an excellent point. Collins should have refused to say anything and then you could have criticised her not saying anything. As for the dialogue that had already taken place with Binnie during which he amended his report twice and he was advised his report was going to be peer reviewed, well, so what? She should have flown him down at taxpayer expense for a cup of tea and some biscuits.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  254. Nostalgia-NZ (5,270 comments) says:

    Actually Key appears to say the review has endorsed Crown Law’s criticisms. More water to go under the bridge, with luck it maybe able to be read toda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  255. thedavincimode (6,867 comments) says:

    BTW, who is the local eminent legal collosus that Binnie refers to as having assisted him?

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