F E Smith (2,353) Says:
March 1st, 2013 at 2:35 pm

To my knowledge, NZ is very much in the minority in allowing reasonable doubt to be defined.

Yes, it appears a definition is not standard, unless specific instruction is requested by the jury.
According to the criminal law review article mentioned above:

In England and Wales, judges have been reluctant to discuss this indeterminacy
with juries. So judges, when summing up, focus on what is required to justify
conviction as opposed to what justifies acquittal. A standard formula is along the
lines that a jury should only convict “if the prosecution has made you sure of the
defendant’s guilt”. Often the wording “satisfied so that you are sure” is used. Judges
do not elaborate on the meaning of “reasonable doubt” (except perhaps if
specifically asked by the jury in which case a judge might say that a reasonable doubt
is the sort of doubt which would affect a juror in dealing with matters of importance
in his or her own affairs).

In Australia, judges direct juries that the prosecution must establish beyond
reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty and that the defendant is entitled to
the benefit of any reasonable doubt and does not have to prove his or her
innocence. If the prosecution case is circumstantial, it may be necessary to tell the
jury that it must acquit if the facts proved leave innocence as a reasonable
possibility…

Fortunately it doesn’t matter a stuff what you believe or want to belief. You can even believe Bain thought the judge was kind to him locking him up for something he didn’t do.

The second trial was a farce. No other profession or organisation could make such a mess of things and get away with it; consider it sound. A comedian in a funny hat with an arrow and a leg in the air shows it’s possible to shoot yourself but not a skerrick of evidence it happened. Against a mass of evidence showing that it didn’t happen.

The Privy Council demanded a jury to hear evidence the NZ courts determined would have made no difference to a jury’s decision. No suggestion Bain was not guilty. Just a bunch of Toffs in London giving an opinion seemingly rooted in a belief Bain would not incriminate himself. Yeah, like: “The judge was very kind to me.” For locking him up for a good long time.

Well, Judith Collins knows a scam when she sees one, and so does John Key. Don’t you worry about the ‘”obsessed nutters” – they’re in good company. This government ain’t going to pay Bain, nor is the next.

Raftery was very quiet on the non-suicide, Bates said in his opening address that they would show it impossible but this didn’t work out very well for them did it, there own key witness agreed with the defence that there was no difficult contortions for a man of Robins build to reach the trigger and replicate the wound in his temple in a number of ways quite easily as shown in the demonstration

If you look at other controversial cases e.g. Jeanette Crewe, there are quite a lot of factors that would make the suicide very difficult, none of them apply here, there was that very obscure case on Sensing Murder a few years ago where Lesley Calverts death was written of as a ‘suicide’ by the investigating cops. This is not about whether or not the pyschic explanations of what happened are likely or not, I am not trying to provide any explanations of what happened, but to believe the death was suicide is completely ridiculous. There was a couple of other episodes in the series where the death also written of as suicide which there were a number of factors that would make suicide extremely unlikely. As I said this is NOT about proving what the clairvoyants said happened or didn’t just an example of how the death was very unlikely to be suicide.
None of those reasons apply in the Bain case, wonder why the crown at the retrial avoided the lounge and the spinners have no explanation for it either.

May I ask you in a judge only trial disallows the evidence?

Do you mean how do they disallow evidence in judge alone?  There are two ways: in the first, a separate judge can hear pre-trial argument and make ruling.  If the argument occurs mid-trial, then the trial judge will hear the evidence on a voir dire (a separate trial within a trial focussing only on the disputed evidence) and make a ruling.  If the evidence is disallowed then the judge will ignore it and not use it in his/her reasons for their verdict.

From my very limited experience as a jury I thought that reasonable doubt was not defined.

It might not have been defined, but in NZ it is the norm to do so.  It is not compulsory, however.

I think his summing up from the video below added to confusion.

I disagree with you on that.  Firstly, just so you know, that was not his summing up, it was a response to a question from the jury after they had been deliberating for a time.  This would already have been addressed during the summing up.  Secondly, Panckhurst J gave a pretty much textbook answer, one that I don’t think was confusing at all. 

May I ask you in a judge only trial disallows the evidence?

“To my knowledge, NZ is very much in the minority in allowing reasonable doubt to be defined. ”

From my very limited experience as a jury I thought that reasonable doubt was not defined. I think his summing up from the video below added to confusion.

Chuck Bird (3,096) Says: March 1st, 2013 at 8:08

I just received this link from a Robin Bain supporter.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10576604&gallery_id=105967

The judge where I was a juror simply said a reasonable doubt is a reasonable doubt.

Chuck, re your 28th Feb at 9.26am, there is absolutely nothing wrong at law with what the media reported Panckhurst J to have said.  Watching his answer to a jury question a bit further down merely confirms that. 

I would point out that what the media reports tell us he said is pretty much what I speculated that he would have said.

I understand with judge(s) only trials there is not the disallowed evidence as in jury trials like the David Bain trials.

That is incorrect.  Precisely the same rules apply.  If the Bain trial had been a judge alone trial then the disallowed evidence would have remained inadmissible.

it appears internationally that the words ‘feel sure’ or ‘are sure’ are frequently used as a measure for juries.

To my knowledge, NZ is very much in the minority in allowing reasonable doubt to be defined. 

What sort of prosecution brings in ‘experts’ to discredit their own expert witnesses! 

One that has been taken by surprise, or has found its experts initial position to be wrong.  See, for example, the trial of Tim Taylor for the murder of Lisa Blaikie.

What is the connection between Bain and Pistorius?

They’re both violent narcissists, perhaps?

Rowan (778) Says: March 1st, 2013 at 11:03 am
… Maybe if you look at … the lounge scene then you might see that it is virtually impossible for Robin to have been shot by anyone other than himself …

Robin died by the curtains, body by the beanbag, no blood on body or clothes, no bruising on torso from fight with Stephen, no prints on rifle, Stephen’s prints on suppressor not smudged, 400ml urine, magazine under a table a metre from beanbag, no prints and not knocked over by nearby hand, used cartridge case in alcove, silly message on computer…

Versus: A man in a funny hat with an arrow attached danced a jig with one leg in the air, showed eventually that with a bit of practice and a lot of luck one might possibly duplicate the shot that killed Robin, but not a skerrick of proof this is anything more than a total fabrication.

Yep, no contest, really. Really? Really.

Doubt on every claim put forward by the crown yet the case is somehow ‘BRD’ for you, LMAO

Yes Chuck, no reasonable doubt, Robin did it
The ‘disallowed’ evidence being the ‘supposed’ schoolboy conversation in 1989 and the witnesses who didn’t come forward for 20 years to give their stories, amazing the prosecution proves nothing at the retrial, yet the suppressed ‘goat’ story decides the case once and for all BRD!!
Maybe if you look at the case logically and the lounge scene then you might see that it is virtually impossible for Robin to have been shot by anyone other than himself (this may require a few more braincells than you have)

It depends on what sort of doubt Judith.

Chuck Bird (3,094) Says:
February 28th, 2013 at 9:26 am
It appears that the media have not recorded Justice Panckhurst’s directions accurately or at least some of them haven’t at they are different.

I understand that his directions are not part of the transcript which is a shame.

If the first quote in the Herald is correct it should be a concern. I hope FES sees and comments on this.

Chuck, Panckhurst’s advice to the jury was standard stuff.
High Court Judge William Young’s report on Summing up to Juries states :

In New Zealand, there is no absolute prescription as to how judges should explain
the standard of proof to juries. Judges usually tell jurors that they will be satisfied
beyond reasonable doubt if they “feel sure” or “are sure” that the defendant is
guilty.Judges also usually indicate that a reasonable doubt is a doubt that the jury
regards as reasonable in the circumstances of the case.

It appears internationally that the words ‘feel sure’ or ‘are sure’ are frequently used as a measure for juries. They must be ‘sure’ of guilt otherwise they must acquit. Of course that has to be the measure here, as a person is innocent until proven guilty, and if the Prosecution has not been able to prove guilt, then that is going to make the jury unsure – have doubts and acquittal is required.

Pistorius’ story seems as absurd as David Bain’s story. It will be interesting to see if a three judges produce a better result than a jury.

“A better result” being one that Chuck Bird agrees with, I take it? Nothing to do with what is the correct verdict then?

Meet Chuck Bird, the man who knows better than anybody…….

Pistorius’ story seems as absurd as David Bain’s story. It will be interesting to see if a three judges produce a better result than a jury.

I understand with judge(s) only trials there is not the disallowed evidence as in jury trials like the David Bain trials.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/video.cfm?c_id=1&gal_objectid=10576604&gallery_id=105967

It looks like one cannot count very much on reporters interpretation. I can accept there was reasonable doubt. However, when I take into account the disallowed evidence combined with the rest I do not accept their is reasonable doubt.

I can understand people may disagree. However, I real difficulty acceptably that David is innocent on the the balance or probabilities let alone almost definitely innocent as the Karamites claim.

Kanz (1,088) Says: February 28th, 2013 at 6:49 pm

1. Explain why, when called a cunning killer, David Bain said, “The judge was kind to me.”

He probably meant the Judge was kinder to him than any of his extended family, because “cunning killer” was not all the Judge said and did.

2. David says:”It is my core belief I was not there.” What does he mean?

It means he KNOWS he was not in or near the house when the old man shot his family and himself.

3. What did Robin gain by sparing David?

He gained the use of his son’s gun because the son was out of the house.

4. If some big strong fellow had a gun at your head, what would you do?

Kick him in the nuts. I wouldn’t stand there, lift one leg, lean my head against the gun and say just do it.

Nothing of substance points at Robin, nearly everything suggests it wasn’t. To me it’s so obvious I must put dissension down to money and madness.

Add stupidity.

1. “Gee, thanks, Your Honour, for locking me up for something I didn’t do.”
2. So “My core belief” = “This is a fact but I can’t say it”?
3. What stopped Robin shooting David when he returned?
4. What evidence is there the magazine was changed at Robin’s time of death?