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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

@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.

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.