Pora goes to the Privy Council

August 21st, 2013 at 1:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

Convicted murderer has formally begun his appeal process.

Pora’s lawyers Jonathan Krebs, Ingrid Squire and Tim McKinnel this afternoon filed Pora’s application for leave to further appeal against his convictions for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett and for aggravated burglary in 1992.

The London-based council’s judicial committee will now consider whether Pora should be permitted to argue his appeal.

If leave is granted, his lawyers are hopeful an appeal can be heard early next year. …

Pora’s could be the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard at the Privy Council, Britain’s highest court. His application has gone there because he started the appeal process before the establishment of the Supreme Court in 2004 – now the final court of appeal for New Zealanders.

I think that is the right decision – one should exhaust appeal rights before you look at other avenues.

I suspect the law lords will grant leave, as they probably miss hearing cases from the old colonies :-)

 

Tags: ,

130 Responses to “Pora goes to the Privy Council”

  1. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    out of everything clarke did, ditching the privy council irks me the most

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Pora’s could be the last appeal from New Zealand to be heard at the Privy Council

    The media says that about every applicant who goes there. One day the media will be right!

    I think Pora has a very strong case from what I know of it. Assuming his conviction is quashed and no retrial ordered, compensation will be an interesting question.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    Given National’s approach to the Peter Ellis case I don’t hold out much hope for Mr. Pora receiving justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. peterwn (3,277 comments) says:

    dime – it was very difficult to take an appeal up to the Privy Council, and quite often there ‘Kiwi’ aspects which the Law Lords indicated they were not placed to consider. A lawyer I know travelled all the way to London where a Maori land matter was to be considered and Their Lordships basically said they were not competent to hear it. So the NZ Court of Appeal was often the end of the road except for serious criminal matters or commercial law matters, in the latter instance there was desirability in keeping Common Law with respect to commercial matters in step between ther various nations utilising PC services.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. metcalph (1,430 comments) says:

    The trouble with the Pora appeal is that as far as I understand it the current objections to his guilt were raised by his lawyer at his second trial at which he was still found guilty. So what else is new? That his current legal team have uncovered a detective who doesn’t think he did it? That’s not exactly relevant to the safety of his conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    David, do not believe Collins’ spin. As stated earlier today on GD:

    ****
    Nostalgia-NZ (3,898) Says:

    August 21st, 2013 at 11:04 am
    flipper: ‘Yep did see that report on Krebs.

    Good, and bad.
    Bad because he may have abandoned hope of Collins et al doing the decent thing.

    But good, because as the total cost (current and future liabilities) emerges, there might be hope that they will see the light.
    I have asked a colleague in the UK to enquire whether the PC matter can be fast-tracked (to some extent, anyway) because of the circumstances.

    I wonder whether the PC will be more direct, if not acerbic, in its criticism of Crown Law (and inferentially Collins et al) than it was on DB.

    I agree with your observations on those folk. They are the most immoral bunch, and totally devoid of humanity. I cannot understand the self justification that has allowed them to take their past and current positions.

    On those individuals and Collins, it would be a good thing if they were all sued for malfeasance, would it not?
    Of course that would be difficult, but not impossible?”
    ….

    It’s more pressure on Collins but she gains time in the interim. I would have liked to see an effort made in the NZ Courts
    to compel Collins to act as she is able under ‘The Royal Prerogative’ it would be something of benefit for our Courts and the public to see tested here.

    The PC is going to shred case against Pora, the leave to appeal hearing is prompt – early next year. It will be interesting if any wisdom finally prevails within Crown Law to look to expedite a solution before then, I don’t think anybody would bet that they had a chance of winning. Releasing Pora by whatever instrument necessary would be a good first step, nothing stopping negotiation apart from ‘old habits.’

    There might well be a tort for malfeasance at some point, I thought in the meantime the High Court might be persuaded to release Pora on bail if Jonathan Krebs made an application under the Habeas Corpus Act on the basis of the PC application and the pleadings it contains, and which will continue to run even if Pora was paroled or bailed, the time he has already served, the ‘quality’ of his conviction and so on.” ****

    That sums up the realities DPF et al. Not much chance of an early PC resolution, nor at home, unless W English looks askance at the costs Michael Heron and Collins are unnecessarily incurring when we need to reduce the deficit.

    Time to cut off the silly buggers at the ankles, David. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    “quite often there ‘Kiwi’ aspects which the Law Lords indicated they were not placed to consider”

    yeah thats one of the things I like about it. i have trust issues with our PC judges

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    Flipper @ 1.38.
    1.”I would have liked to see an effort made in the NZ Courts to compel Collins to act as she is able under ‘The Royal Prerogative’ it would be something of benefit for our Courts and the public to see tested here.”
    See the procedure for the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in the link below. I understand that Pora’s lawyer submitted or was about to submit an application but deferred it pending further information. It seems that Pora has now chosen to go to PC to secure an acquittal on the basis that it is preferable to a pardon. The Minister of Justice does not initiate the exercise of the Prerogative and if the applicant choses to go to court instead (and, in this case, may be obliged to go to Court instead) then there is nothing Collins can or should do
    http://gg.govt.nz/role/royalprerogative.htm

    2. “There might well be a tort for malfeasance at some point…”
    There is no tort of malfeasance. There is a tort of misfeasance in a public office. In this case, Pora would have to show that a public officer deliberately and unlawfully exercised a power held by that public officer, that the public officer acted with malice towards the person concerned or acted with knowledge that the conduct was unlawful and was likely to cause some injury to the person concerned and that the person concerned suffered damage. If you feel that there is an action here, perhaps you could flesh it out having regard to these principles.
    3. “…the costs Michael Heron and Collins are unnecessarily incurring when we need to reduce the deficit…”
    The Crown has not had to do anything yet and has not yet incurred any costs. The Crown may very well capitulate now that the ball is in its court. Equally, it may take the view that the legal grounds for a successful appeal do not exist. We will simply have to wait and see.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    ‘metcalph (1,119) Says:
    August 21st, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    The trouble with the Pora appeal is that as far as I understand it the current objections to his guilt were raised by his lawyer at his second trial at which he was still found guilty. So what else is new? That his current legal team have uncovered a detective who doesn’t think he did it? That’s not exactly relevant to the safety of his conviction.’

    Not quite his ‘confession’ has been studied and found wanting. Whatever The Crown may argue about the validity of the ‘confession’ they will have to agree that Pora was held in communicado for 4 days without access to a lawyer, that he had to be shown the property where the murder took place and his description of Susan Burdett didn’t match, putting that together with the fact that there is absolutely no forensic evidence linking him to the scene; the expert’s opinion, who has analysed the ‘confession’ highly probably will be considered to be new evidence which a jury should hear. That would take into account that at his first trial the Crown relied on paid witnesses to bolster the ‘confession’ and in the second additionally ‘paid’ witnesses who claimed to be able to put the real perpetrator and Pora together. Amazingly, that 2nd group of witnesses for all intents and purposes had been holding silent on that information until offered money. A free and frank confession replete with telling detail, I don’t think so.

    Now of course we also know those in charge of the case had formed an opinion before Pora’s first trial that the rape and murder of Susan Burdett was the work on a serial rapist working alone (and weren’t they right about that?) Yet of course as we also know neither jury got to hear that because the police didn’t ‘discover’ that to the defence. That new evidence, the profiling of the offender evidence by the police themselves – including the propensity of Rewa to attack the head of his victims, the professional opinion of the validity of the confession underpins a very unsafe conviction even before considering what those previously in charge of the case would now say under cross examination about an inquiry that seems to have broken every rule. From the point of the NZ Courts it’s very hard to understand why the ‘confession’ was admitted into evidence in the first place, there are few, if any, top line lawyers who wouldn’t have had it ruled inadmissible even as it stood before the new evidence emerged, No legal advice, held unlawfully, inducements offered, ‘assistance’ given of extraordinary detail – and the possibly the most significant no independent proof that Pora was at the scene or even knew where it was before being ‘told.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Flipper

    “Releasing Pora by whatever instrument necessary would be a good first step, nothing stopping negotiation apart from ‘old habits.’ ”

    You are not suggesting that common sense is more important than due process?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Nookin;

    ‘When will a case be reopened?

    A person’s case will normally be reopened when new information becomes available that raises serious doubts about a conviction or sentence’

    What’s limiting the Minister from acting? There is no question that serious doubts have been raised, and there is precedent for the Government to act as Peter Williams has pointed out,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Nookin and Chuck Bird…

    The quotations attributed to me, are not mine. But I would be pleased to lend my name to them.
    Those points were actually made by Nostalgia-NZ (please read my post).

    But….

    1. It all comes down to will and face. The RP procedure quoted is a smoke screen.
    N-NZ reminds us of Peter Williams comments, that I suspect might more accurate and weighty than some others, Collins included. And you forget Thomas. Please do not tell me that it followed an inquiry. That was another Collins untruth. Thomas’ pardon followed a QC’s report to Muldoon (also read Wishart on Muldoon and the near senile McGregor -the judicial straw that broke the Crown’s back – it is delightful). Muldoon took the issuet to the Cabinet. They backed his recommendation for an immediate pardon. Jim McLay took care of the paper work – just about that quick.

    So what we have is a determined effort by Crown Law et al to stop that happening again …..because they are scared s***less of where it will lead, and what it will cost, in both reputations and dollars.

    2. Malfeasance. Of course public office. But that is what those fools hold, be it Police, Crown Law or Ministers. They all hold public office, do they not? Difficult, but not impossible.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. OneTrack (3,116 comments) says:

    “nickb (2,552) Says:
    August 21st, 2013 at 1:19 pm
    Given National’s approach to the Peter Ellis case I don’t hold out much hope for Mr. Pora receiving justice.

    You mean the petition in 2003, and the report on the petition in 2005, that was rejected by the Labour government?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    As much as I would like to think that compensation would follow swiftly after the sentence is quashed, somehow I doubt that will happen. Whilst it is easy to see that Pora is not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, just how will he prove he is 100% innocent?

    The police will of course challenge it by saying that he did confess, and therefore they will within their rights to continue to charge him.

    The will then come up with 34 reasons why compensation should not be paid out – some of which will be blatant lies.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Further to the comment I posted above…

    ***Judith (3,680) Says:

    August 21st, 2013 at 12:05 pm
    @Nostalgia NZ and Flipper

    Whilst I am glad the process is continuing for Pora, I am saddened that it has been necessary to go to the Privy Council, thus more opportunity to delay the inevitable.

    Pora has to be pardoned, and common decency would see him compensated for the 20 years of his life wasted behind bars, but I very much doubt that would ever happen.

    There is nothing so important as our liberty, that it can be removed from us due to ineptitude by authorities, who then continue to evade responsibility is beyond all standards of decency in our civilised society IMO. ***

    Quite correct Judith. But sadly the usual crackpots would keep him there.

    I once pinned the Human Rights Commissioner to the desk, by referring one ” its” (I say its because I do no wish to say he or she) relatives that had recently been wrongly and unjustly charged with an offence.

    The HRC paled, and listened carefully to the matters I delivered. I won, by pointing out that even those in high places have relatives who are unjustly persecuted. The Government agency involved lost.

    Why is the treatment of Pora a cruel injustice? Because the poor bugger is at the bottom of the dung heap, and has no relatives able to push for justice. He relies on Krebs and other sensible folks, all acting pro bono.

    Collins ? A smirking vulture, who would have been quite at home in Ravensbruck..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Some material from M. Travis, May 1998 on the RPOM in NZ.

    The whole thing is worth reading, however in the excerpt below is what seems to the answer in Pora – no limits apparent on ‘the discretion’ to exercise. And in the final sentence, what now appears to be a ‘prophetic’ observation regarding a current Judicial Review as, hopefully the Courts and The Executive will ensure that ‘Executive Powers’ are consistent with Statute, due process and Natural Justice – all things which must have been included in the original concepts of the Royal Prerogative. Great observation by Lord Diplock included.

    ‘The prerogative of mercy seems limited only by the discretion of those who have the power to exercise it – the Sovereign, and the Governor-General by way of delegation in the Letters Patent 1983. Fortunately a precedence has been set by the practice of successive Home Secretaries that, in the words of Ivan Hare , “a free pardon should only be granted in cases where it was established that the convicted individual was both technically and morally innocent.” Although only a precedent and in no way binding, this is most compelling and surely to be followed by successive Governor-Generals.

    The only major mechanism that has been suggested for controlling the use of this prerogative is the possible threat of judicial review. So far there has not been a successful appeal for review, but there are many arguments on either side of the issue.

    In de Freitas v Benny [1976] (Court of Appeal in Trinidad), Lord Diplock observed that “mercy is not the subject of legal rights [but] begins where legal rights end.” Christopher Gelber considered this a ruling that “the exercise of the prerogative of mercy was inherently extra-legal in nature and therefore not justiciable,” as did Lord Roskill in the G.C.H.Q. case [1985] A.C. 374. Furthermore it cannot be denied that the Crown’s ability to pardon displays the necessary characteristics of a true prerogative; yet there are those like Watkins L.J. who reject the test of justiciability “in favour of an examination of the court’s capacity to weigh the competing issues of principle in each case.” Watkins considered the courts to be competent enough to review the prerogative of mercy.

    Nonetheless, a judicial review of the prerogative has never been undertaken in a New Zealand court. The closest thing so far was the ‘review via invitation’ in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Benley [1993] 2 W.L.R. 101; where the Divisional Court did not order a formal review but “[invited] the Home Secretary to look at the matter again.” Ivan Hare saw this invitation as attempting to “impose narrower parameters on the discretion of the Home Secretary” via the informal mechanism of invitation, but he seems dubious as to its ability in having any real effect. This is because it is beyond the role of the courts to suggest a particular result, and because any purported limitation on the role of the Home Secretary is illegitimate.

    The issue is also a live one in Burt v Governor-General [1989] 3 NZLR 64, (1987-89) 7 NZAR and [1992] 3 NZLR 672, and some very important contributions to the argument are made. In these cases, Mr Burt sought a judicial review of the Governor-General’s refusal to exercise the prerogative of mercy in granting him a free pardon. Although unsuccessful, Cooke P said that:

    “It would be inconsistent with the contemporary approach to say that, merely because [the prerogative of mercy] is a pure and strict prerogative power, its exercise or non-exercise must be immune from curial challenge.”

    He states that the Courts’ wish to review the refusal to exercise the prerogative is not “absurd, extreme or contrary to principle” as it is at the very least attempting to ensure that fair procedure has been followed. Moreso he adds that the prerogative of mercy is not “an arbitary monarchical right” but “an integral element in the criminal justice system…a constitutional safeguard against mistakes.”

    In conclusion, the prerogative is not to be touched by the Courts or judicial review, yet the concept is one that is winning favour amongst the Judges. It is possible that in a few years there will be mechanisms like judicial review to control the use of the prerogative, but it is very unlikely that it should ever become part of a statute.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Very good summary Flipper
    This case stinks, there is absolutely no case against TP apart from his own statements he made back at the time. He had been already ruled out of the enquiry aka AA Thomas. Its a joke! it appears that not many consider him guilty including several police involved in the case.
    On assistant commissioner Burgess’s argument Teina has been convicted by 2 juries so therefore “must” be guilty, using this logic as Malcolm Rewa had 2 juries unable to agree on the verdict of murder, he therefore is “innocent”.
    I see 3rd degree have an episode on Rewa tonight, will be interesting to watch.

    You are absolutely correct Flipper Collins is nothing but a vulture, yet she claims she has ‘no opinion’ on the DB case and TP ‘may be innocent’

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Judith (3,681) Says:
    August 21st, 2013 at 4:31 pm

    “As much as I would like to think that compensation would follow swiftly after the sentence is quashed, somehow I doubt that will happen. Whilst it is easy to see that Pora is not guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, just how will he prove he is 100% innocent?”

    You would think so wouldn’t you? I’d say around 75% of NZs population would probably agree with this. Unfortunately our tax lawyer who masquerades as Minister of (in) justice doesn’t and would probably shop around for a report seeking the desired conclusion that Teina and Rewa were jointly responsible for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett. Similar to the Bain or Rex Haig cases?
    I haven’t seen the porno judges report on Haig but have read some of the criticisms and it appears it was much like the academic incompetents so called ‘peer review’ of Justice Binnies report.
    In Haigs case it appears that his scumbag nephew was likely involved and also involved in knocking of one of the witnesses, but its hardly a strong case against him and not beyond the possibility that they could have been jointly involved due to a total lack of evidence of any sort

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Rowan….
    Excellent.
    When Collins loses on Pora, resisting Binnie on Bain may become impossible (which it probably is now).
    I understand that I Binnie is watching developments on this and other similar matters with interest. I also hear that his Judicial “friends” in the UK have been quite shocked.

    I imagine that in quite short order the Law Lords will become aware. The Judiciary is a talkative mob – among themselves. Of course, that will not influence their decision on Pora. But it may well influence the nature of their comment, which will probably be direct and acerbic..

    Collins et al need to be wary.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Griff (7,818 comments) says:

    flipper (2,214) Says:
    August 21st, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    You called me a lair flips would you like to back it up with a link.
    I called you a wing nut and I am prepared to back that up with graphic illustration of your stupidity.
    Quoting a letter to sir paul nurse from a total unknown as authoritative science is lunatic fringe stuff as was the content of said letter.

    Idiot flipper a stupid useful idiot.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    Meanwhile David Bain’s attempts at getting material from Judith Collins has not worked out so well.

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/blow-david-bain-s-legal-team-5538709

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Ross

    Just another sad indication that Collins has something to hide.

    If she was being up-front and honest there would not be any reason to hide anything, nor would their be documents she doesn’t want other people to see.

    All this has done is confirm that Ms Collins has taken part in correspondence which was inappropriate to her position, and which she does not want anyone to see.

    You might take great delight is seeing a Minister of Justice act in such a biased manner, but I am sure there are many people that find her behaviour disgusting. As I have said all along only the truth will achieve justice – acting in privacy, making comments they don’t want anyone to see, hiding behind legal privilege is very revealing of Collins behaviour – extremely ugly. It will damage her, and not effect the over-all outcome and may even assist in it, by demonstrating there is something that Ms Collins has done, she is REALLY keen for other people not to know.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    The judgment is on line.

    There was a discovery agreement between the parties which the Court has ruled that Collins has complied with.

    The Judge has looked at the documents that were further request to be release despite that agreement and is satisfied that their is no disadvantage to DB that they are not released on the basis they are privileged.

    Para 16 refers to the essence of DB’s claim – denied natural Justice. Para 20 ‘As to this issue, Mr Bain already has, it seems to me, documents that may prove significant.’

    Those documents are not referred to in detail, but we probably got the details of one which included details of one of Ms Collins staff confirming the use of strategies to deal with Binnie, strategies obviously not declined by the Minister.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    “All this has done is confirm that Ms Collins has taken part in correspondence which was inappropriate to her position, and which she does not want anyone to see. ”

    Really? The effect of the decision is that she has taken part in correspondence entirely appropriate to her position and that she is just as entitled to say to Bain that he cannot see the whole of her file as he is entitled to say that she cannot have his. She would not have been entitled to claim privilege in relation to matters not involving legal advice. That it evident from the tenor of documents actually disclosed. The judge found that she acted with the appropriate candour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Perhaps Nookin, but the Judge has also said that documentation already released under discovery, contains documents which, seem to her, demonstrate DB’s pleadings that he has been denied Natural Justice. Paras 16 and 17 rather than 16 and 20 which I wrote above. But by all means feel congratulated.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Of course it seems that Malcom Rewa is on the side of the Minister who claims not to be able to do anything, fairly interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    I have just watched 3rd degree on ondemand and this case gets worse the more you unravel it. Its a total farce! Rewa could (and should) have been caught way back after being identified as this womans rapist back in 1987! The scumbag went on to rape a further (known) 24 victims including Susan Burdett who was murdered. Every single one of these attacks should not have happened and Susan Burdett should still be alive (and no doubt would) if the police had done there job at the time.
    No evidence against Pora at all he should be pardoned and given upwards of $5m in compensation. Rewas rape victims should all be able to claim damages against the crown aka Susan Couch under the BORA.
    Judy is a joke, ‘any complaints about police conduct should be made to the IPCA’ who have refused to investigate this victims complaints, what an absolute joke!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    To those who are more familiar with this case than myself, I have a few questions that maybe someone can answer. In the Rewa re-trial, the jury convicted him of rape, but could not agree on the murder verdict? So they agreed he raped her, but somehow could not come to an agreement that the murder thus followed? Surely any jury would conclude that given Rewa’s DNA was found inside Susan Burdett he must have been the killer!? How is this possible, was it because everything was muddled up with Teina Pora already serving life for her rape and murder?

    Also, from watching the documentaries on this case recently, the official Police view was that up to 3 people were involved in the killing? Given that Rewa was later discovered to be a lone, solo offender (with an erectile dysfunction problem) how likely is it that he would have taken a 16 year member of an opposing gang on this one occasion to help him commit a rape as this seems somewhat absurd.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Brad
    Yes correct Rewa was convicted of rape but there were 2 hung juries regarding the murder charge, you would think that a jury should be able to follow that given that Burdett was dead with Rewas DNA found on her and that he was guilty of the rape then it would logically follow that he was the killer, who knows what they were thinking. I would say yes definitely to everything being muddied with Teina already being convicted and serving life.
    Haven’t heard the 3 person theory it seems that the police believe the ‘two rapist’ theory in order to justify there prosecution of TP, else they would have to admit they screwed up in the investigation of SB’s murder and the wrongful conviction pursued of TP.
    As Karam says in D & G, ‘it appears justice is a game to be won and lost, and for those pursuing the case against David Bain (read Teina Pora) would stop at nothing for a win’
    and yes you are right the theory that Rewa would take along an accomplice to watch him jack off (so to overcome his erectile dysfunction issues) and then carry out the crime together is a ridiculous joke!, When DNA samples in the Dougherty case showed someone else’s DNA present the crown introduced a similar two rapist theory despite it never being claimed by the victim. To me it just shows the disgusting lengths the cops will go to cover there arses and justify there actions, rather than admitting they got it wrong. Thats what I hate about the NZ legal system the most.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    Thanks for replying Rowan. Very sad to see some of one of Pora’s own family members (his aunt i think it was) testify at the retrial (she was paid for this) that she thought she had seen Rewa and Pora together at one stage, thus backing up the Police theory that Rewa and Teina committed the crime together.

    Will be very interesting to see how this case turns out. Malcolm Rewa is a coward in a perfect world he would own up to the killing (given that he is serving preventative detention with a 22 year minimum) and will be almost 70 before he is eligible for his first parole hearing it is quite possible that he may die in prison before being paroled as it is, so in a literal sense having a further murder conviction after your name won’t make any difference to this parole eligibility date as he is already serving an indefinite sentence.

    Your point about Dougherty is quite chilling also, clearly the Police here have a bad record with regards to admitting their mistakes. I think that if Teina’s original conviction was quashed before the Rewa trials and Police admitting that they could have gotten the wrong guy then Rewa would most likely have been convicted of her murder too and there wouldn’t be this large mess of it all today

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Longknives (4,767 comments) says:

    Amazing how all the Bain supporters beat their chests and raved about our Jury Trial system after the retrial ‘Not Guilty’ verdict…
    Yet the Teina Pora Retrial jury somehow made a terrible mistake convicting the Mongrel Mobster who admitted being involved in the killing??
    Odd and inconsistent..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Brad

    ‘Your point about Dougherty is quite chilling also, clearly the Police here have a bad record with regards to admitting their mistakes. I think that if Teina’s original conviction was quashed before the Rewa trials and Police admitting that they could have gotten the wrong guy then Rewa would most likely have been convicted of her murder too and there wouldn’t be this large mess of it all today’

    That’s true, that could be the worst part of this mess. By holding their ‘position’ that Pora was involved the real killer, Rewa, escaped conviction. I don’t recall what the requirements were for a sentence of PD in 1988, but if the officer attached to the GI Police back then had followed up on Rewa, a known and convicted rapist, Susan Burdett would never have crossed paths with Rewa, along with the 24 (known) others he was convicted of raping. I expect the momentum gathered following the revelation that police let Rewa escape, accepted an ‘alibi’ from him that was never authenticated, is going to disastrous for police unless they take an early initiative. In terms of Pora, Rutherford and Williams at least should be charged with conspiring to defeat the course of Justice and let a Jury decide on their culpability. In terms of police conduct those paid to lie might yet emerge as the millstones around the necks of Rutherford and Williams, and add to their known abuses of process in detaining Pora illegally and ‘helping’ him with his ‘confession.’ There will be a number of people crapping themselves on the basis of what those ‘paid’ for evidence might now say about the ‘details’ of those payments and what ‘help’ they got with their ‘tailored’ evidence. The elephant is in the room.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    NOS.

    This is not a matter where congratulations are due or not. I was simply challenging Judith’s logic that the fact that Collins claimed privilege is proof that she was biased and had something to hide. As you correctly point out, she disclosed documents that might prove embarrassing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    The Rex Haig case is very sad..the wife’s nephew kept getting off scot free..There was some link up between the corrupt Ingill cops and the corrupt West Coast cops so that later when the nephew traveled there he was let off things as well. Two men falsely imprisoned in this case..I think the younger one is still in prison. Shameful.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Longknives

    I am certainly not a David Bain supporter but think that it is almost certain that Teina Pora is innocent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Nookin 6.40. You were actually totally right. I was being cheeky.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Early this morning Nostalgia-NZ said:

    *** …of Pora, Rutherford and Williams at least should be charged with conspiring to defeat the course of Justice and let a Jury decide on their culpability. In terms of police conduct those paid to lie might yet emerge as the millstones around the necks of Rutherford and Williams, and add to their known abuses of process in detaining Pora illegally and ‘helping’ him with his ‘confession.’ There will be a number of people crapping themselves on the basis of what those ‘paid’ for evidence might now say about the ‘details’ of those payments and what ‘help’ they got with their ‘tailored’ evidence. The elephant is in the room…. ***

    Exactly.

    As I said yesterday afternoon, there are many in the crown scrum, who are s******g themselves, over where Pora will take them. It will certainly lead to Bain, to Watson, to others, and to the very likely demise of the IPCA, the latter being something out of a MAD comic book. (Lord, did you read what that fool Knowles said of their findings in relation to the Christchurch pensioner? )

    The TV3 programme last night was appalling in the sense that it confirmed a completely callous attitude by Collins, Crown Law, the IPCA, and Police. Collins simply confirmed that she is a fool, befuddled by her delusions of future political leadership (not that she has a bolters!).

    The Law Society fellow summed up the situation when he said that every time this (for that also read these) case(s is scratched), the scab lifts and pus pours out.

    The Crown will fight like the devil it has become, to prevent prosecution of those cruel miscreants, just as Neazor sat on his hands over Hutton. And in relation to that case, I remind folks that Crown prosecutor Morris was so concerned for his position that he engaged personal counsel to protect his interests before the Royal Commission.
    Classic Mens Rea, was it not?

    ++++

    On DB….not yet had a chance to look at Keane, but N-NZ’s observations above seem to indicate that Collins attempts to have the case dismissed are doomed to failure, and the JR will go to a full hearing.

    Is Collins posessed of Mens Rea? Absolutely..

    Now, bring on the main event.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Longknives

    The juries in the Pora trials did not hear all the available evidence, mostly due to the fact the Crown had not disclosed it all to the defence.

    In the David Bain trial, the first one, similar occurred, things were presented that weren’t correct, evidence was said to be one thing, when it later proved to be another (e.g. blood on David’s quilt was Stephen’s, it wasn’t it was David’s own blood probably from acne bleeds).

    Then at the second trial the jury heard the correct results of tested evidence, including the blood splatter evidence that totally disproved the Crown’s scenario on how RB died.

    The juries in all these situations made their decisions based on what evidence was presented to them at the time.

    It is not the juries who are to blame for these mistakes, there is only one primary organisation and that is our inept police for who in both cases conducted shocking investigations.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ flipper

    Last nights program revealed a very ugly side to the police, but an even uglier side to the MOJ.

    Those 25 women, or their surviving family members deserve the respect of being given explanations – not being fobbed off by Tolley and Collins. The lack of respect is appalling. But what the program did do is make a complete prat of Burgess. That man looked like the absolute fool he is, and even more contemptible than most of the people he locks up.

    As for Bain, I agree with you. The decision makes it clear that Bain does not need those documents, as paragraphs 16 and 17 point out, what has been disclosed already demonstrates the environment that Collins was operating under, and shows clearly that she did not follow a fair process.

    I have no idea what the JR will achieve, if anything, but I do laugh at the RB supporters who so ignorantly think yesterdays decision was some sort of indication that compensation will not be paid. What they don’t seem to realise, poor demented souls, is that even a subsequent compensation report will come to the same conclusions, even more so if it does incorporate Baynesian analysis, and the thumb marks are proven to most likely be from the magazine.

    Because of the process so far, Collins is under scrutiny, she will not be able to make the slightest biased selection when the next report is completed, which will give her much less advantage that she has grabbed for herself in this first round.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “Collins ? A smirking vulture, who would have been quite at home in Ravensbruck..”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “It is not the juries who are to blame for these mistakes, there is only one primary organisation and that is our inept police for who in both cases conducted shocking investigations.”

    Man I hate bent cops and the scum who stick up for them!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    “I am going to actually write to the IPCA and ask them about that,” Ms Collins said on Radiolive today.

    “That would be unusual for me to do that but I’m going to do it to find out what the reasoning is. If it was that it was 20 years ago and there’s no point because all the police officers involved have left or the process has changed well that might be a valid reason but I think it’s worthwhile asking the question and I will proceed to do exactly that,” she said.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11112589

    What does Collins think she is playing at? All the police involved might have left or whatever, so therefore its fair enough if the IPCA don’t investigate under those circumstances?

    She is just using delay tactics – Pora needs to be out on parole, the government needs to apologise to the victims of Rewa for not investigating that matter in an competent manner, and then, they need a Commission of Enquiry into the handling of this case, so they can determine how they can compensate those who were harmed by police ineptitude.

    Start digging around for loose change, again police incompetence is going to cost us. How long are we expected to put up with these platitude comments from Collins – she already knows the answer she is going to receive – does she expect brownie points for asking the question – just how stupid does she think the public of NZ is?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    As you correctly point out, she disclosed documents that might prove embarrassing.

    So David doesn’t want a taxpayer hand-out, he wants to embarrass the Justice Minister? That’s quite a come down.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    ross69 (2,803) Says:
    August 22nd, 2013 at 11:18 am

    As you correctly point out, she disclosed documents that might prove embarrassing.

    So David doesn’t want a taxpayer hand-out, he wants to embarrass the Justice Minister? That’s quite a come down.
    ******

    Everyone, except perhaps you, muggins, the mad dentist, griff the serial liar, and their like, know full well that you are stupid.

    But do you really need to advertise your stupidity in neon lights?

    Your mother (hopefully still alive and kicking) will be shaking her in despair. Save her the worry.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ ross69

    Really Ross, was that the best you could come up with? :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. brad123 (18 comments) says:

    What worries me also about the Pora case is the witness’s (some were paid according to the 3rd degree investigation) who claimed that Rewa and Pora knew each other. I believe there was one witness at the Rewa trial (or retrial it may have been) who said something to this effect, and at least one or two at Pora’s retrial in 2000 that said the same thing. Hopefully his defense team is able to confirm if these claims were bullshit or not, or at least throw doubt on to them if they were paid witnesses (one of them was a jailhouse snitch in the retrial I think) as it may be hard for Pora to get compensation in the future if his conviction is quashed because of these witnesses alleging a link between the two.

    Interesting links from the NZLII regarding Pora’s case as well: http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZCA/1999/231.html?query=pora

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    If anyone recommends the IPCA as the way to go if you’ve got a gripe against the cops they are either bent or ignorant.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Longknives @ 2.28

    “Amazing how all the Bain supporters beat their chests and raved about our Jury Trial system after the retrial ‘Not Guilty’ verdict…
    Yet the Teina Pora Retrial jury somehow made a terrible mistake convicting the Mongrel Mobster who admitted being involved in the killing??
    Odd and inconsistent..”

    This coming from the witch-sniffer/JFRB fruitloop who thinks the court ruling in favour of JC not having to release the documents to Davids defence means “Judy has won the review” and that KP defamation trial will be a third trial of David and that CS will be able to finally ‘prove’ that David is guilty!

    Longknives you are a fool,
    Yes we are happy that the correct verdict was finally made for David, and that the crown case has been since 2007 shown up as the shallow, weak, implausible, erroneous web of lies that it is. Who is ‘raving’ about NZ jury trial system? it is seriously flawed and allows for far to many high profile miscarriages of justices like is demonstrated in the Pora case.
    Just because he was a 17 year old wayward youth involved in crime you seem happy that he is behind bars. This is not a complex case at all and should never have been brought on in the first place. He perhaps should have been charged with wasting police time, if you looked at the evidence you can see he was spoon feed exactly what the cops wanted him to say and said it, who knows why certainly doesn’t make him a killer!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    The crown case against David Bain is nothing more than theories, speculation, downright lies and inferences not supported by the evidence. The case against Teina Pora is non existent. Rex Haig is another which was a very dodgy case with a total lack of evidence to support his involvement or innocence.
    Bryan Bruce did one of his cases on another one where a Christchurch bloke was convicted along with two others who both admitted there involvement and said that he wasn’t involved and they didn’t even know him. Yet one eyewitness said they saw three men present, while all other witnesses only saw 2, yet he was convicted along with the other two based on that and that he had said some incriminating stuff but he basically said he was drunk that night crashed in a mates car and couldn’t remember anything.
    Even Bryan was able to work out that the case was seriously flawed.

    These and may others just illustrate the justice system we have in NZ which the likes of Longknives thinks we should ‘celebrate’

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Why wasn’t Rewa pursued for rape #1? The police had all they needed to go after him but they didn’t. Was it because he was police employee?

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

    The environment in the police force during the 90’s was pretty shocking, but I expect they will cop out by saying it was covered in the Bazley Report and is no longer happening. Either way those women need to be acknowledged and an apology giving, and that is the starting point…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    ‘Why wasn’t Rewa pursued for rape #1? The police had all they needed to go after him but they didn’t. Was it because he was police employee?’

    I wouldn’t be surprised by what I know of him. But I think more likely, or at least as well, it was because the complainant – as she said, was a 19 year old hanging out with Highway 61. Saying that the police couldn’t do anything until they had Rewa’s name is extraordinary, and even after they had it they appear to have done very little. Of course it was the gang scene, presenting it’s own set of problems of corroboration and so on – but the fact remains, as Bouchier pointed, out he had form for the same type of offending and should have been pursued with vigour.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Brad
    Somehow I doubt that even if Rewa confessed to being the sole rapist and killer of Susan Burdett that anything would be being done differently, and TP would still be left rotting in jail.
    Its absolutely shocking the police culture we have in NZ and that our justice system would value gaining a conviction against an individual above establishing the truth of what really happened.

    A historic case I have read about an 17 year old in Western Australia back in the 1960’s was convicted of the manslaughter of his girlfriend after the police had bullied a confession out of him. He was convicted and served 10 years despite the fact someone else confessed to running the victim down. This person was found to have been a serial killer responsible for many other death’s at the time and was sentenced to death, despite this and his confession, the WA government took over 40 years to acknowledge his wrongful imprisonment.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Button_(campaigner)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    A good article illustrating the need for an enquiry into this case. It is an absolute travesty of justice, JC is a joke. The case now goes way beyond Teina Pora and extends to the rape victims of Rewa, which never would of happened had police done their jobs properly

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/9079095/Police-failed-Susan-Burdett

    The brother of Susan Burdett, the woman who was raped and murdered in her Papatoetoe home in 1992, says she’d still be alive if police had acted properly and has called for a political inquiry into her death.

    Speaking in Auckland today, Jim Burdett said he believed Teina Pora, who was convicted of his sister’s murder and has spent 21 years in jail, was innocent and that police had failed his sister.

    “I want to know why my sister had to die.

    “I feel sorry for Teina Pora I think he got himself tied up in knots. . . I think the only thing Teina Pora is guilty of is stupidity.

    “I have lost a sister but I have a very nice pakeha middle class life and Teina Pora has been in jail all of his life.”

    Burdett said he believed his sister would be alive if police had acted properly and had acted on the first complaint from a woman who said she had been raped by convicted serial rapist Malcolm Rewa.

    TV3’s 3rd Degree this week revealed the woman, who was attacked in 1988, gave police Rewa’s name but when they approached him he claimed to have an alibi.

    It was later established the man he claimed to have been drinking with had been in Australia at the time, TV3 reported.

    The victim complained to the Independent Police Conduct Authority but it did not look into the matter.

    “Essentially we know that the police apparently made a number of mistakes along the way,”” Burdett said.

    “They failed to follow up on various matters around Malcolm Rewa’s offending they failed in their duty to protect my sister and the other women who were raped.

    “I don’t say that with any malice because we all fail. We all make mistakes, we are all human. What I think is important that we learn from our mistakes and that requires an investigation of our mistakes.”

    Burdett said he was the only one in his family able to speak – his father was dead and his mother and brother were too unwell.

    He said there had not been a satisfactory investigation of police mistakes but it had instead been left to the media.

    “I believe I have have the moral authority to ask there be a commission of inquiry I believe it would have to be at a political level.

    “The police are not prepared to . . . the independent police conduct authority . . . the last stop is the politicians.”

    Burdett said an inquiry would bring a resolution for him.

    “At the time of Teina Pora’s arrest there was all this mystery. It took me time to let go of the mystery . . . the unsettling fact that I didn’t know what happened.”

    Burdett said he believed Malcolm Rewa was responsible for his sister’s death.

    “I never believed that Malcolm Rewa would take a 15-year-old with him on one of his invasive rapes. It’s laughable to think that anyone could believe that.”

    Burdett said for the first time since his sister’s death the sequence of events was coming clear.

    “For the first time I’m getting a sense that I can finally lay this to rest when this inquiry is over. I’m sure there are at least 24 other women . . . perhaps there lives would be a little better a little lighter because of that as well.

    Burdett said his message to Justice Minister Judith Collins was: “find out what went wrong and follow due process to set it right.”

    He said Collins could “give me a ring if she wants a chat”.

    This comes as lawyers for Pora have begun an application to the Privy Council for leave to appeal his convictions.

    Once the application has been received, the judicial committee of the Privy Council would then consider whether Pora would be allowed to argue his appeal, lawyer Jonathan Krebs said.

    “If leave is granted, we are hopeful that an appeal can be heard in the early part of 2014,” Krebs said.

    Pora was twice convicted for the rape and murder of Burdett and has spent 21 years in prison.

    Questions have been raised over the convictions and groups including the Police Association have called for an independent inquiry into the case.

    Pora’s appeal for a pardon has stalled, pending more information, and Justice Minister Judith Collins said recently he was one of 15 people currently applying for a pardon or compensation, and all cases had to be given the same consideration.

    Collins yesterday told Parliament she had asked the Independent Police Conduct Authority to explain why it had not investigated a complaint made to it about the police conduct in the case.

    “I’ve taken the very unusual step of asking if they could provide me, as the minister responsible for them, for the reasons … as this is a matter that one would normally expect would be passed to the IPCA.”

    IPCA chairman Sir David Carruthers yesterday said the authority did not take action over the complaint made about police failure to investigate information relating to Rewa because it involved a police investigation related to historical matters that were 20 years old.

    “Since that time there have been significant changes to police policy and procedure when dealing with allegations of rape and sexual abuse, including the recent changes that are still being implemented, following the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct conducted by Dame Margaret Bazley.

    “The Authority therefore decided an inquiry into the way police conducted their investigation 20 years ago was not warranted, particularly in view of the fact that many of the officers involved in the earlier investigations will have left the Police force in the intervening period.

    “In addition these issues are connected to the conviction of Teina Pora which is likely to be subject to ongoing court proceedings. The Authority determined it would therefore be inappropriate for action to be taken in such circumstances.

    “The Authority is currently reflecting on all of the issues that have now been raised relating to this matter,” Sir David said.

    Prime Minister John Key said earlier this month he was “inquisitive” about claims of a miscarriage of justice relating to Pora’s conviction, but said the Government should not intervene.

    ACT leader John Banks said while he had believed Pora was guilty at the time of his conviction, he now believed there had been a miscarriage of justice.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Thanks for posting that Rowan.

    Carruthers is out of his depth as anything more than a Family Court Judge, or running a low grade District Prisons Board (since abolished).

    As I said yesterday the IPCA is like something out of a MAD comic book.
    Who was the main character in those?
    Collins? No Newman.
    Well, no difference. :)
    +++++

    On Bain …

    I have now read the full judgement. It is worth time for any really serious student of this mess.
    While Reed did not get all he wanted, he got a big foot in the door at Paras 16 et al….and, significantly, at Para 160.

    That (Para 160) could be an elephant, could it not?

    In sum, the web of delay, obfuscation and outright lies, that Collins and her CL mob have tried to weave, is getting ever tighter – around her neck.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Rowan 11.58. All power to Jim Burdett, have to admire his resounding logic and reasoning.

    flipper 12.30. Flicked back to look at para 160. Early days but the Court seems to be responding well to the challenge. I hope we are seeing the breaching of institutionalised injustice perpetrated by undefined power and process.

    Looking forward to the point when it is realised that matters pertaining to Rewa can be investigated now under their own heading rather than the buck passing about Pora’s appeal process and so on. The controversy surrounding the investigation of Rewa and his over 20 victims can be looked at independently despite how it will invariably weave itself around the death of Susan Burdett. It reached that point with the new information coming from the 1988 victim.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    ***** I hope we are seeing the breaching of institutionalised injustice perpetrated by undefined power and process. ****

    In a nutshell N-NZ.

    I see David Carruthers has finally moved but let us wait to see how long that takes. The IPCA is nothing if not a very lame snail. :)

    What a pity that Shearer had to go now. It is diverting media attention from a real injustice. I watched Little try on Collins yesterday. He may be good in an industrial dispute, but he is not as sharp as the tax lawyer, who is no slug in The House.

    Anyway, N-NZ, Rowan, Judith HANWEnd
    F

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Kanz (1,419 comments) says:

    I see David Carruthers has finally moved but let us wait to see how long that takes. The IPCA is nothing if not a very lame snail. :)

    He has said they will investigate the Rewa case, but will not touch on the Pora one, “as it is before the courts”

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    The video interview of Jim Burdett is very good, I agree totally with him, there should be an enquiry to acknowledge the mistakes made and for the additional victims of Rewa, As he says the police are human and make mistakes but they need to acknowledge this rather than sweep it under the carpet and wipe there hands of it as Judith Collins and Malcolm Burgess appear to be doing.

    Flipper
    I only briefly looked at the judgement, the Mason clinic escapee cult following of Kent Parker seems to think the judges finding for JC means the judicial review is now over, and they have won. Really looking forward till Octobers court proceedings against them which they think they will be a ‘third trial of David’ How long do you think Kent (defending himself) will last? The judge could let it run for entertainment value!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Rowan says…

    *** How long do you think Kent (defending himself) will last? The judge could let it run for entertainment value!***

    Since we pay for the Courts, surely they owe it to us to provide value for money entertainment? No? :) But my guess is that it will not be very long before Mr Parker is cautioned that he needs proper legal advice. Say, mid afternoon, or earlier – presuming that a large dollop will be by way of affadavit (?).
    I agree it will be good sport.

    >>>>

    Kanz..
    Did not catch up with that detail. Thanks.

    Ignoring Pora is going to increase pressure on Collins which I suspect might be pissing her off. But Carruthers owes her nothing, so it does not surprise me that he has taken the one step, side step. On the other hand, he is playing the “before the Courts” straight bat, is he not? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    I see the IPCA are going to investigate the alleged failings of the police in the Rewa case, but doesn’t sound like they are going to address any issues concerning Pora. They still hide behind the fact it is before the courts, failing to address the fact that they had plenty of time to address it before the application to the Privy council was made.

    They will still look at this from the police side, and will present a report that says ‘so and so’ didn’t do this and that, but as ‘so and so’ has now left the police and we have changed the manner we address sexual crimes, there is no need for further action –
    they will totally miss the fact that there are 25 women with serious issues due to the rape, and even more issues knowing it didn’t need to happen because the police already had the rapists name. It is the victims that matter in this – those 25 woman, and their families and friends who have suffered because of this.

    The saddest part of all is that the IPCA report will identify these particular crimes and fail to address the fact that whilst they were ignoring Rewa, there were also other crimes being committed, with other victims during the same period, that they also mishandled.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Bugger, “affidavit”

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ flipper – don’t you just hate it when that happens! You have a great weekend too!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. nickb (3,687 comments) says:

    You mean the petition in 2003, and the report on the petition in 2005, that was rejected by the Labour government?

    No actually, I was meaning Brash-led National which promised an inquiry into the case in Opposition which once National came to power was refused by one of the great political luminaries of our time, Simon Power (AKA Palmerston North conveyancer). Try turning your blue blinkers off for a second.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    I’m not writing off the IPCA (hope that doesn’t come back to bite me,) because of some very clear information which I misheard the other night. Until reading Rowan’s post above I thought that the check on Rewa’s alibi wasn’t undertaken because the person going to ‘vouch’ for him was in Aussie. In fact it seems the person was in Aussie at the time of the offence, I think it is very difficult to form a credible argument that Rewa shouldn’t have been charged on that basis alone – a false alibi. Then looking at the other circumstances, the complainant obviously a credible person, Rewa’s recent release from prison on a similar charge – I believe he would have been gone for all money. Also underlying that is the fact that Rewa now stands convicted on that particular charge. It’s not as though years later he was some how ‘more’ guilty than he had been years before when he gave a false alibi.

    Even though it’s logical to separate the Rewa-Pora inquiry I am a bit surprised that has happened, and that it happened today. I think we are likely to see to a finding, or one that will be tested if it’s not, that Rewa’s offending cycle would have been cut short if he’d been arrested in 1988. Not only that, but a finding that he should have been arrested. We all understand what that means in terms of the other women and Pora without it having been spelt out. Remembering the police’s ‘second go’ was that Rewa took Pora along with him, obviously concocted on the basis of the older man taking the younger along. Even if that distasteful line was continued to be held later, it puts both Rewa and Pora out of the picture regarding Susan Burdett, Rewa in prison and obviously the person unknown to him ‘not going along.’

    The Crown are going to find it increasingly hard to hold onto the Pora conviction, I think they will even consider ‘flagging’ opposition to having it overturned or being ‘forgiven’ by way of the RPOM. The rats nest has been given a kick this week from which I don’t think it can recover. All MOJs have similarities and obvious differences, they’re not ‘tailor made’ as one cap fits all. In this case a month ago it was known or suspected that there was one victim of a MOJ, then more recently 4 (the ‘delayed’ linking by dna to confirm a police held view that there was a serial rapist at work – delayed, one can argue, to get the Pora’s conviction sheeted home.) This week the number is 26 and rising on 2 fronts – from inaction at the GI police station in 1988, and from an illegal detention around 5 years later of a youth in the Otahuhu station.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    it will not be very long before Mr Parker is cautioned that he needs proper legal advice.

    Well, I hope the judge does a cost-benefit analysis for Mr Parker before he gives that advice…

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    A damning finding from the IPCA for once, this guy was probably a bit of an idiot but certainly didn’t deserve what he got from the cops!

    http://issuu.com/the.star/docs/113233cs?viewMode=magazine&mode=embed&layout=http%3A%2F%2Fskin.issuu.com%2Fv%2Fsoftlight%2Flayout.xml&backgroundColor=dddddd&showFlipBtn=true&proShowSidebar=false&logo=http://starnews.co.nz/images/MagicBox7.gif&logoOffsetX=0&logoOffsetY=0&CTI=15167

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ F. E. Smith

    I believe the Court has already provided some instructions along those lines, however, the two defendants are continuing with their intention to justify their defamation against Joe Karam, by intending to prove that David Bain committed murder. I think their rationale is that by proving that, they can show that they were justified in their defamation of Karam because he was so wrong in believing DB to be innocent.

    It takes a bit of getting your head round the rationale – it helps if you’ve had a brandy or ten first.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Judith
    I think KP, VP et al would have more chance proving that it was the goat that did it, How delusional is Kent? he somehow believes that DB is the defendant!!

    Sometimes I wonder, does CS require new members to sit an IQ test and score low enough to be allowed to join. All the members seem to be delusional fruitcakes with no ability to think with logic or reason.

    Will be good to see them get whats coming to them come october, I suppose its to much to hope that they are men of their word about North Korea, but they might need to set aside a fund for it!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    I think the attitude of JC, the Justice department and the IPCA is just not good enough. “We can’t run an investigation while TPs case is before the courts” bollocks If there was a full investigation there would be no need for the case to go to the PC. Also the IPCA with “the matter is 20 years old and many of the original investigation are not currently serving” I understand they have backtracked and will now look into the rape victims of Rewa but this is still woefully inadequate as its way beyond them.
    I believe JC is the worst thing about the national government and needs a Zimbabwe, Libya or Syria before she will act in the interests of justice!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @FES

    Well, I hope the judge does a cost-benefit analysis for Mr Parker before he gives that advice…

    What would you know about cost-benefit analysis?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    So tell us Chuck (unless I/we have missed it) how did your day in Court and the $70,000 go ????

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @flipper

    The judge in sick at short notice so the Settlement Conference was postponed till 23 Sept.

    This probably upset the other party more than me as I was hit with a “will say” statement at 4:25 pm on the Friday when the conference was meant to take place Monday. As I said before I was laughing when I read the will say statement till I got to the part about legal aid. I have since found out the other party has not applied for legal aid. I have also contacted legal aid services in case he decides to apply later.

    When I queried the other party’s lawyer about an untrue allegation I managed to refute here is the reply I got.

    Mr xxxxxxx is irrelevant and I don’t know why my client mentioned him

    My question to you is what competent lawyer would file a “will say” statement without going over it with his client and taking out what is irrelevant? How dumb was it for hias lawyer to let his comment about legal aid to be put in his “will say” statement?

    The statement is relevant to me though as it is further proof that his client is a lair.

    I also got a reply from the Law Society confirming they the Standards Committee is looking at my complaint over a lawyer borrowing money off his client.

    I reasonable confident the justice will sort of prevail in the end. I say sort of because I expect a favorable judgment but because of unnecessary delays I will have great trouble getting my money as it will be spent and/or hidden.

    Thanks for asking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rowan

    It is certainly too much to hope they are men of their word. One of the major difficulties with that concept is that their words keep changing. In order to be ‘men of their words’, they would first need to recognise the concept of truth telling. Not one of their greatest talents unfortunately.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,744) Says:
    August 24th, 2013 at 7:21 am

    What would you know about cost-benefit analysis?

    He probably knows a hell of a lot more than you do Chuck. For goodness sake, the man is a lawyer and you don’t get to be one of those without a great deal of hard work and intelligence. Just because things haven’t gone your way, doesn’t mean the entire profession is corrupt. You’ve spent a great deal of time telling us your side of the story and all the while I find myself wondering what the other person might have to say about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rowan

    I agree with you. I suspect Collins was selected with a purpose to keep a tight reign on cases such as the Thomas, Bain, and Watson cases, all which were stirring before she go the position. Unfortunately in doing so they have underestimated the degree of fault on the side of the Crown (including the police) in most of these cases, and indeed on the Pora case, which was already stirring when she was appointed.

    Sooner or later all these cases will have to result in an investigation into police handling so serious offences. We’ve had the Bazley report, but that only covered one aspect, as yet no one has addressed the increasing number of incompetent acts by senior police officials, including the CIB when it comes to investigation and presenting these cases in Court.

    There are just too many of them now, and as the list grows, it will eventually force the government to act.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Judith

    Using your strange logic I could say Dr Robert Fisher, QC is a highly qualified lawyer and former judge so he is obviously intelligent so why do you think you know more than Fisher?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Chuck

    Really, and where have I said I know more than Fisher – although I’m sure on some matters I do, just as on some matters I acknowledge he knows more than me. Life is like that, we each have our areas of expertise.

    Robert Fisher may have experience but that experience has shown him to be very biased towards the Crown. For that reason, and I presume you are talking about the Bain case by mentioning him, he was not a wise choice for Collins to use, because it was always going to incite arguments regarding bias.

    It doesn’t matter which way you want to paint it Chuck, Justice Binnie is a vastly experience man whose professional status is far superior to Robert Fisher, especially on an international standing.

    I am not quite sure where you get this garbage from that I think I know more than Fisher (but you fail to state on what subject that is pointed at)

    I do disagree with the man doing something he states is a peer review, when clearly by international standards it is not. And that is something I have the qualifications to decide, as the peer review process is one aspect I am very familiar with in my profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Robert Fisher is an academic incompetent hired gun of Judith Collins along with Kristy MacDonald. Fishers written to prescription academic essay on the Bain case is nit picking and it appears he was sent the reasons along with the desired ‘outcome’ beforehand. It appears his work on the Rex Haig report was of a similar standard. I know of only one case where he has found against the crown being that of Aaron Farmer where there was DNA evidence he didn’t do it. Feel free to highlight any others.
    On this basis even he should be able to recognise Pora is innocent BRD although hopefully it doesn’t end up going to him.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    What qualifications does Judge Ninnie have in criminal law, science or psychology?

    His experience is in commercial law. A qualification in one field does not mean a person is qualified in another area.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    What legal qualifications does Chucky have that put him in a better position to judge Davids guilt than Ian Binnie.
    The PC and the Jury didn’t seem to think the case was so ‘obvious’ Chuck, I guess they were wrong and you and your CS witchsniffing cult are ‘right’ and know better than them!
    Have you ever thought that just once you might be wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    Yes I did. I was wrong when I initially fell for Joe Karam’s spin.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    No Chuck you were right until you were brainwashed by KPs cult, The only evidential argument I have seen you put forward on any of the threads is the suppressed evidence and the ‘goat’
    Is this really the best you have?
    The crown case is nothing but theories, conjecture and bs. There is no ‘proof’ of any of there theories/arguments and they are not supported by the evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    I think it would be good to see a decent reconstruction of how David is supposed to have carried out these crimes, given the killer ‘must’ have left fingerprints on the rifle then he must have been holding it left hand on the forestock and given that he ‘must’ have worn the glasses and Margarets had a lens adjusted for astigmatism and would have distorted his vision then he may have had his right hand covering up that lens.
    I suppose Marzuka or one of the CS fruitcakes could do a clip, it might be as laughable as his one reconstructing Robins ‘murder’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Rowan

    Yes, aren’t Marzuka’s reproductions a real laugh. Still they keep the CSpinners amused (not that it takes much).

    They have all these theories which they like to propagate but which have never undergone forensic analysis by people suitably qualified and/or equipped to test. Instead they look at a picture and if it doesn’t fit what they want they adjust the aspect a little to get the story they want and expect people like Collins to accept it. Their ability to see anything rationally has long gone.

    It will be interesting to see them present their unscientific and blatantly biased ‘proof’ in October. KP and followers have much resting on a win – of course, if they lose it will be everybody else’s fault, but their own – such is there inability to see fault in their own actions.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Judith

    He probably knows a hell of a lot more than you do Chuck. For goodness sake, the man is a lawyer and you don’t get to be one of those without a great deal of hard work and intelligence.

    Judith Collins probably knows a hell of a lot more than you do Judith. For goodness sake, the woman is a lawyer and the best Minister of Justice in New Zealand’s recent history and you don’t get to be one of those without a great deal of hard work and intelligence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. muggins (3,788 comments) says:

    When you read the Binnie /Bain interview you have to think that Binnie was predetermined to find Bain innocent, come what may. There were quite a few answers that Bain gave that were obviously at odds with what other people had said, yet Binnie let them go without further questioning Bain.
    The lockable door to the lounge ,which Bain denied. The change in testimony re his father having a room in the house.
    The goat story. Those blue trackpants that were obviously too long to belong to any other member of the family apart from David. David tells Binnie he can’t drive the car without glasses, then next minute he tells him he can drive the car without glasses.
    David tells Binnie the reason he didn’t make his mother a cup of tea, no, sorry, he changed that to coffee, [Joe Karam wouldn't be too happy about that as he referred to it as tea in his book] the reason he didn’t make that cup of coffee was because he was all sweaty and dirty. So why didn’t he have a shower? And what happened to that dirt? There was no dirt on him when the police arrived.
    And that is just the interview.
    What about that report. Binnie refers to an empty 10 shot magazine. He refers to it more than once. There was no empty 10 shot magazine.
    And how come Binnie thought that bloody sockprint must have been made by Robin Bain? Was he not aware that that sockprint was not a complete heel and toe print?
    And why did Binnie think that Robin Bain would have noticed any of his family were dead if he came in the back door?
    He saw the floor plan. The only bedroom that Robin Bain would have walked past was David’s.
    I just cannot understand what Binnie was thinking.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Say Chucky…

    Were you standing behind the curtain when the trigger was pulled for the last time?
    If it wasn’t Robin who killed his family and himself, it must have been you, or the ghost that is muggins. No?
    Surely you can see that your continued floundering in a cess pit of bullshit, suggests that you are covering your guilt. No?

    Oh well, I supposed I can accept that you are probably no more “guilty” than David Bain. But David has been formally judged by a jury of his peers, and also by an eminent Jurist to be not guilty. Have you?

    You see where the dill brain witch sniffers (“luvverly” term that) arguments take you?

    If the matters raised by the injustices perpetrated by NZ Police, Crown Law and silly, dilly Collins were not so serious, dealing with the likes of you and muggins et al would be a really fun sport. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    This, earlier this afternoon on the Priv Comm postings…

    ***peterwn (2,374) Says:
    August 24th, 2013 at 2:33 pm
    flipper

    Re Bain – The judiciary (via judicial review) can only indicate the matters to be considered, the steps that should be taken and the relevant law in considering a compensation claim. While the judiciary at the most might possibly be able to put words into her mouth on what she should advise Cabinet, the final decision would be at Cabinet’s discretion. Also as far as I can see, the Cabinet is not bound to abide by the Cabinet Manual – it is not an enactment. Anyone doing ‘business’ with the Cabinet eg Ministers, Cabinet Committees, departments, etc needs to abide by the Cabinet Manual or the submission may not make it to the Cabinet table. IMO Judith Collins has the perfect answer to Bain’s claim if she chose to give it – “I am not even going to take it to Cabinet”. As far as Professor Joseph is concerned, he is advocating on behalf of David Bain, so of course he will try and argue hard that Judith Collins and Cabinet are constrained in how they reach a decision. If he is advocating for someone else later he may whistle an opposite tune if this suits the case.

    The Bain claim is a political matter at the end of the day. The ‘legal action’ being taken is probably more application of public relations pressure rather than in the belief that the courts will tell Cabinet what to do..
    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
    flipper (2,249) Says:
    August 24th, 2013 at 3:13 pm
    Peterwn..

    But you forget Susan Couch do you not?

    Cabinet’s manual is nothing but an administrative handbook which has no force in law (and no one has been able to show otherwise to my knowledge). Ergo its statements in relation to compensation are wishful thinking by Crown Law (which is why they opposed adoption if the Law Commission’s recommendations on an independent tribunal) and applicable only to half-hearted applicants.

    As I have said on other matters, were it an argument involving, say, the Todd family, Douglas Myers, Bob Jones , and the like, the crown would bail out – quickly. Those folk have deep, deep pockets.

    Now to return to Bain:
    • Bain sought compensation for wrongful imprisonment.
    • Bain agreed that if an independent authority (inquiry) were appointed to review his application, he would accept the outcome – which ever way it went.
    • Cabinet and S. Power appointed an internationally respected jurist, I. Binnie.
    • I Binnie found in favour of Bain, and recommended compensation.
    • I Binnie noted that it was for the Cabinet to determine quantum.
    • Collins and her conspirators unilaterally rejected Binnie, and engaged in a process that is contrary to natural justice – and to the pre inquiry agreement.
    • All Collins’ actions are reviewable (JR) by the HC (plus any appeals to CoA and SC)
    • Currently the Crown is shit scared of the consequences. The more they dig themselves in the worse it becomes.
    • Internationally, the NZ Judiciary and leading QCs are feeing heat over the treatment of Binnie by Collins, Police Crown Law and Fisher.
    • At the end of all this, if the Crown does not follow Muldoon on Thomas (over the dead body of CL/Police) a BORA action, a la Couch, will surely follow.
    • Binnie’s report and possible personal evidence would inevitably be part of that.
    Others may be able to argue it better, one way or the othrer. But the traditional Crown Law/Cabinet brick wall has already been breached. If is in danger of complete collapse. That would be a very good thing for New Zealand, and far more important to a modern democracy than all the GCSB crap we have heard from the MSM over recent months.

    Nice, nice Saturday afternoon here. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. muggins (3,788 comments) says:

    flipper
    Bain was found not guilty, but as one of the jurors that found him not guilty has explained, that does not mean that he is innocent. She said they believed that the Crown had not proved their case,
    She does not want him to receive any compensation. What does that tell you?
    Binnie was appointed to determine whether or not Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities but unfortunately he was not up to the task.
    So someone else will have to be appointed to do the job.
    Judith Collins is not , as you so crudely put it, shit scared of anything.
    The best thing for David Bain to do is withdraw his compensation claim . He has no show of convincing anyone else he is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Flipper

    “Cabinet and S. Power appointed an internationally respected jurist,”

    He is not all that well respected by many Canadians. Judith got put in an awkward position by Powers.

    We need a new review. It would be best if it was note done by know all bloody lawyer.

    Different rules apply anything can be looked. This different than in court.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Oh dear Aunt Fanny has arrived to spread her fertiliser over DPFs blog
    Muggins
    This blog would be much better off without your idiotic contributions, you add NOTHING of any value. The only reason you cannot understand Binnies report is you have nothing inside your very hollow head where most people would have a brain.
    Now why don’t you f… of and stop adding to DPFs blog statistics for the sake of it.

    Are you by any chance going to be one of Kents witnesses come October, the judge could do with the laugh!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    “Judith Collins probably knows a hell of a lot more than you do Judith. For goodness sake, the woman is a lawyer and the best Minister of Justice in New Zealand’s recent history and you don’t get to be one of those without a great deal of hard work and intelligence.”

    Thanks for the laugh Chuck, you are just happy as you like her have a predetermined outcome of the Bain case, seeing as you ‘know’ what happened.

    The best Minister of Justice in NZ, right! Chuck even you agree that the Pora case is a gross miscarriage of justice, do you think it is somehow being handled appropriately by JC and the justice department given that Judy has stepped in and now the womens complaints against the cops over the Rewa investigation are now going to be investigated by the IPCA? Sound like justice to you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    “Sound like justice to you?”
    Yes.

    IPCA wasn’t acting on any complaint. Collins stepped in and now it is.

    Pora is going to PC. We do not know what position the Crown will take. It may concede the appeal. It has, after all, just been lodged.

    Pora deferred the application for a pardon. Collins does not have authority to release Pora. The injustice, if established, happened 20 years ago. Not now.

    What, specifically has Collins done wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Chucky….,

    *** ” … It would be best if it was note done by know all bloody lawyer.

    Different rules apply anything can be looked. This different than in court.” ****

    Did you really engage your pea brain before you wrote that?

    Well now, Chucky, would you emulate Pol Pot’s courts? Even Hitler, Stalin and Mao appointed “lawyers” to their Courts. Come to think of it, that is what you are advocating, is it not?

    It is the likes of you and the mugsie one that make me wish eugenics were possible – with retrospective effect.
    To say you are delusional would be a very kind understatement.
    To say that you are both high on something like meth, crack or heroin laced hemp, would be more accurate.

    Love to see you at the burning of the witches in October.
    I presume you will follow the once honoured (by some) Hindu tradition and ignore the stake in favour of self immolation on KP’s funeral pyre.
    May you burn quickly and painlessly.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    Nookin says…
    ***What, specifically has Collins done wrong? ***

    If you need to be told that she is obfuscating and talking bullshit, as is Carruthers, you need help.

    As Peter Williams QC has reminded her and us, she could follow the Muldoon example and do what he and McLay did for Thomas. Period. Oh, and about as quick.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    “What, specifically has Collins done wrong?”

    The better question is what has Collins done right since being appointed into her current role? as Flipper correctly points out if you can’t see this then you need help!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @flipper

    I am sure someone like Dr Kerry Spackman would come to a far more logical conclusion than Judge Ninnie. He would also support his decison by logic and probability something lacking in you Karamites,

    Have you read any of his books?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Oh the arrogance of the stupid counterspinners

    “support his decison by logic and probability”

    You wouldn’t even know the meaning of this, logic and probability actually tells us that Robin committed suicide, and as it has never been suggested that there are two killers then this makes David innocent. QED

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Rowan & Flipper

    You can call names all you like. It does not worry me because I know DB who on the balance of probabilities is one of New Zealands worse mass murderers will not get a cent of taxpayers money. If you think I am wrong put some money on ipredict.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Yes Chuck
    You ‘know’ were you there? you also ‘know’ that he won’t get paid, how many incorrect predictions have you made regarding David so far Chucky?
    I think you are just arrogant and your view is based around the bankrupt logic that CS uses. Your naive view is unsupported by the evidence and you have been brainwashed by a cult. It looks like we won’t have to worry about Kent much longer, he will get what he deserves come October.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    I posted a comment on another thread about bigotry. The comments on this thread simply reinforce my view that some commenters are so entrenched in their own fixated world view that any sensible debate is pointless. It is only a matter of time (usually measured in seconds) that they descend to personal abuse and ad hominem comments. A shame really because there are some serious legal and constitutional issues open for debate on these matters. If you are going to have a crack at Collins over the Binnie report then you have to accept that Finlayson, Heron and a number of others are equally culpable. You have to dismiss the Fisher report out of hand, also. I have read more comment supportive of the Fisher report than damnatory. That doesn’t necessarily mean that he is right. However, it is the height of ignorance and arrogance to say he is an incompetent and the report should have no weight whatsoever

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    @Rowan

    how many incorrect predictions have you made regarding David so far Chucky?.

    Only one after I read Joe Karam’s books.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    I think, too, before you compare Muldoon’s handling of Thomas with Collins’ handling of Pora, you might have the integrity to point out that Muldoon did not act with that much alacrity. There were years of agitation by Bell and Pat Booth of the Auckland Star, thousands of hours of voluntary work by Jim Sprott, an international seller by David Yallop and the nigh on irrefutable proof that the bullet did not and could not have come from Thomas’ gun. That took years during which the case was in the news almost daily. Muldoon eventually appointed a QC who found the conviction unsafe and the pardon then followed. The Royal commission was then convened because there were no cabinet guidelines.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    JK said in his books if Davids case is heard by the PC they will quash it, the witch-sniffers laughed and what happened?
    He also said that it is retried then a jury will come back with not guilty, ditto
    He then said if it is heard by an independent jurist he will be found innocent, ditto

    I hope to god some of the clowns we have here never get anywhere near a jury.
    How surprised were you with a not guilty verdict Chuck, the crown experts couldn’t even agree on their case, yet you ‘know’ BRD, I guess you just know better than them!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    flipper 3.34

    The horse has bolted in terms of Collins being able to turn her nose up at the Courts. It’s start as you mean to go and if Collins wasn’t going to recognise The Courts, she needed to apply for the JR to be dismissed on that basis at the outset. However, as you say she would have gone into deep water immediately regard the BORA – and leave the Government open to being sued. On that point I believe they should have been sued in 2009. But to the present, The Compensation Rules were put in place against a recommendation from the Law Commission for Legislation on Compo to enacted, and resulted in NZ abstaining from a UN mandate on the matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Just to add to the above, my opinion that Bain should have sued in 2009 for damages was based on the PC ruling of an ‘actual MOJ,’ The Jury’s finding of not guilty and the obscenity of having to go cap in hand for compo to those that demanded a ‘retrial’ (The Crown already having delivered a MOJ) and lost. That actual ‘MOJ’ hasn’t been resolved yet and Collins has already shown her contempt for natural Justice, due process and the very word Mercy.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    NOS
    “It’s start as you mean to go and if Collins wasn’t going to recognise The Courts, she needed to apply for the JR to be dismissed on that basis at the outset.”

    The judicial review proceeding is really quite unique. Unlike civil proceedings, where a defendant can apply to strike out a statement of claim or apply for summary judgment, it is very rare for an application for judicial review to be dismissed at the beginning. It must be so patently without foundation for that to happen. It must also be remembered that the JR process involves a scrutiny that an issue will not normally receive in the first instance which is why so many administrative decisions are found wanting. They are not always overturned, however. The court can decide that despite its shortcomings, a decision shall still stand. This, I think, will be the Crown’s major plank.

    Collins is not denying Bain’s right to apply for judicial review, nor has the court indicated that it will review the decision — or even that it is reviewable. We have not yet arrived at the stage where the merits are argued.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Collins is not denying Bain’s right to apply for judicial review, nor has the court indicated that it will review the decision — or even that it is reviewable. We have not yet arrived at the stage where the merits are argued.

    Thank you Nookin’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    muggins (2,543) Says:
    August 24th, 2013 at 3:58 pm

    He has no show of convincing anyone else he is innocent on the balance of probabilities.

    What a bloody stupid statement to make, not only did Justice Binnie’s report state he was factually innocent on the balance of probabilities, but even Fisher’s report did not say that finding was wrong. Instead he critiqued the process in something he called a Peer review, which had none of the common characteristics of a ‘peer review’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    nookin. Too late I’m sure, we can’t have all these preliminaries regarding discovery, venue and so on only to return to a fixed point that the decision isn’t reviewable. The Minister needed to make that clear at the outset, it would have been the first argument. I expected that she might have, but when venue and discovery questions emerged it showed she hadn’t. It’s procedural to confirm or deny if the matter can be pursued at the outset, or at the very least for the Court to be advised that the status of the legitimacy of the hearing is in question – following which that would be decided first. Putting it another way why would the Court or even The Minister move onto hearing preliminaries if the status of the hearing, or the eligibility of one party to bring them or the other the need to reply was under question.

    Excuse any mistakes – there’s a game on,

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    NOS
    Proceedings like these are a bit of a moving feast. They tend to evolve as the process goes on. Bain is proceeding on a number of bases. He has some evidence that may suggest bias (which is only one of his planks) but it may not necessarily be enough to vitiate the decision making process. The application for further discovery was designed to produce further evidence of bias. Basically, it was a fishing expedition that came up short — legally and, apparently, factually.

    It would be a bold court to say at the beginning, without substantive argument, that this is not the sort of decision that can be reviewed. The questions that the Court will answer are
    1. Is this a reviewable decision?
    2. Should it be reviewed?
    3. Even if the Minister erred, should the court give any relief.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Nookin:

    ‘It would be a bold court to say at the beginning, without substantive argument, that this is not the sort of decision that can be reviewed.’

    No the Court wouldn’t say that, if was for Collins to make that argument and the Court would have responded by making that the foremost preliminary matter. She didn’t. She has raised one preliminary argument venue. The second was raised by Bain – questions regarding the discovery process.

    Have you read the Judgement?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    I have skimmed the judgment but did not follow it closely. There were only a couple of issues that I wanted to look at. In the over-all context of things the venue issue was neither here nor there. The discovery application followed because Reed wanted access to more documents. He probably didn’t have enough confidence in his bias argument.

    So far there has been nothing really unusual about the way Collins has handled the proceedings to suggest that it is weighted one way or the other. It would be an exceptional case to be thrown out before all the evidence is exchanged and before discovery is completed. Without seeing the affidavit evidence I am not going to venture any opinion on the outcome. I am interested in the general principles from a professional point of view — not simply because the case is of public interest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    The Court commented on what had already been discovered to Reed and probably being sufficient for the argument in the pleadings. He may have been looking for more as a ‘fishing exercise’ as you or someone else said here earlier. In fact he may have been looking more at the construction of the information to the Minister and whether or not it was effectively a partisan argument rather than ‘advice’ that didn’t have a purpose that could be seen as biased. There were important dates mentioned in terms of ‘advice’ from the police and that from the SG. I’m sure he has every confidence in his argument of ‘bias’ courtesy of a release from the Minister’s office which was mentioned at the hearing.

    There is a lot that is ‘unusual’ about the way Collins has handled the proceedings that does suggest a bias. But that is only part of the picture, in fact overall it could be a very small part in the final wash up. Questions as to whether a person can be held unlawfully for 13 years by virtue of a MOJ then have no access to compensation other than by a pathway in which no rules apply according to the Minister of the day, or even going back further the exclusion, by virtue of that Ministerial process, to a normal remedy through the Courts. We virtually have a situation where although the Courts have been the venue for false imprisonment, say because of police misconduct or other reasons, the individuals that have endured that peril are excluded from relief through the Courts.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    “When you read the Binnie /Bain interview you have to think that Binnie was predetermined to find Bain innocent, come what may.”

    Yep it was a conspiracy by Binnie to find David innocent – he ‘knew’ he was guilty really
    Just like it was a conspiracy by the PC to quash the conviction and rule an ‘actual miscarriage of justice had occured’ they knew it was safe really but just made the decision anyway to deliberately make trouble for crown law
    It was also a conspiracy by the jury to come back with a not guilty verdict – David was clearly ‘guilty BRD’ they just thought they’d join in the fun.

    You have to feel the crowns pain don’t you!!

    Lucky for us we have the Counterspinners who via their ‘trial by media campaign’ actually ‘know’ what really happened

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    NOS

    All valid points but not necessarily without counter argument.
    Let’s put Collins aside for the moment. Assume Bain should have received a copy of the report from Fisher or should have been advised that a report was to have been commissioned. Assume also that some of Fisher’s criticisms are valid. Fisher is correct in his approach to circumstantial evidence — I do not think that anyone disputes that. The question is whether Binnie did not apply the principles correctly. Fisher does mount a plausible argument that he did while at the same time conceding that Binnie did not necessarily come to the wrong conclusion.

    What orders could the court make? It cannot direct the crown to pay compensation.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    That is possibly the most interesting question Nookin. They can’t order the Crown to pay compensation as you say, in fact they possibly can’t make any orders at all (although there have been at least 2 Judgements to date,) but they can answer some of the key arguments raised by Bain about due process and so on, make a recommendation or offer advice. In ‘best case’ even recommend that the Minister reconsiders her position. I feel sure that The Court will appreciate the perils of this ‘never land’ where a person is stripped of normal rights and their future left to the ‘whim’ of the Government of the day.

    Looked at another way each minute this case is in Court it’s credibility to be there is confirmed, The Court will foremost always confirm the Law and rights, equity and fairness, particularly in this case – recognising by such, that each of those things, fairness etc, should never be denied by some ‘quasi’ legal process in the hands of politicians,

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Nookin (3,360 comments) says:

    There is a point at which the court ceases to confirm, protect or give effect to rights on the one hand and starts creating rights on the other. Where that line is drawn is what this case is all about.

    Do we need special legislation and a specialist tribunal? How often do we have this problem?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Scott1 (552 comments) says:

    Cant we just speed up this process?
    Just set TP free whilst still convicted and then also allow him to appeal to the Privy council for quashing the conviction. Pass some law to allow it if required.

    I’m not so sure about compensation – but since he admitted to doing the crime (and that is the main cause of the problem) – maybe the state should sue him for compensation, that is a different state of affairs to David Bain.

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

    @ Nookin

    I think the majority accept that the Court cannot make any orders to make Crown pay compensation, however, they can provide a decision regarding the ‘fairness’ (for want of a better term) on the process which saw the report released to some, but not all parties involved. Whilst the Cabinet can and does have the right to ignore any such decision, how wise would they be to do so?

    You ask in another comment about the need for special legislation/tribunal. I believe this problem and similar problems occur far to frequently. Whilst most are aware of the ‘big’ cases, those who have been picked up by the media, there are other cases that remain out of the radar. There is a definite need for a body to deal with such matters that whilst administered by government is independent to it.

    I firmly believe that the Bain Compensation bid now needs to be handled by a tribunal of suitably qualified individuals. I do not believe there is any other process that the government can follow that would be fair. Especially not getting Fisher to do a report, given that he has already been in receipt of 34 points that the Minister had decided she didn’t like about the report.

    How was that fair in a peer review process? What Fisher produced did not resemble a peer review in any manner. If Binnie’s report is not acceptable (and I believe there is a very good argument that it is) then the process needs to be restarted from the beginning.

    I personally would like to see a proper peer review process on Binnie’s report. One where the requester does not corrupt the process by providing the set of answers she would like.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Nookin:

    ‘There is a point at which the court ceases to confirm, protect or give effect to rights on the one hand and starts creating rights on the other. Where that line is drawn is what this case is all about.

    Do we need special legislation and a specialist tribunal? How often do we have this problem?’

    Looking for protecting and giving effect to rights here I think, for those that fall into a ‘no man’s land’ where the State has tried to restrict what those few can do – by saying bring this issue to us and we’ll see what we can do by use of the tool ‘The Royal Prerogative’ applying rules as we see fit. If anything about our Laws and rules is a reminder of the potential misuse of power by the old Kings and Queens of Britain this is it and it should be escaped into the 21st Century.

    No, I don’t think we need special legislation we need natural Justice and due process applied as would happen in the Courts and as can be reviewed by the Courts then precedent would lead the way. I think the Law is there now, it’s an inflexibility of thought by the Executive and their advisors which handicaps the process – they really need to seen as separated from The Crown, in reality that would save a lot of money and take pressure off The Crown who often inherit or promote improper conduct from an investigation and dig into defend it. That’s what cripples the process and costs a fortune. Some prosecutions for improper conduct would send out a loud and therapeutic message to those that might cut corners as has happened in the Pora case for example.

    We have this problem too often, essentially the ‘system’ is creating it by the right questions not being asked at the right time – such as ‘how has that cartridge case turned up weeks after an earlier search’ and so on, or ‘we need to press the point with Heather Demler now that a witness has identified her or someone like her being seen on the Crewe’s farm after the murders and before their ‘discovery.’ That word ‘discovery’ possibly the most abused term in the Criminal Justice System and common in all MOJs and someone in Crown Law has always known about the particulars in a individual case but chosen not to ‘discover’ them to the defence in order to gain a conviction. Stepping back to look at that familiar characteristic, and it is finally the Lawyers involved who have failed in their duties. An example of that is that the prosecutor in the Pora case didn’t tell police that they can’t use the Pora confession that it was inadmissible for the blatant circumstances of it’s formation – all these things echo off in time, hanging around decades later as we see today. It can be fixed.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Scott
    Teina did not ‘confess’ but implicated himself with some dumb statements made when he was seeking the reward at the time. If you watch the police interviews of him they basically spoon feed him what they want him to say. When he was asked direct questions about the crime he got even the most basic details totally wrong, the policeman would have to point them out and spoon feed him some more. Watch the first 3rd degree episode on it back in March/April.

    Nos
    One minor correction to your above post but I think you meant to put Norma Demler and not Heather, It has been long established that Heather was in the USA at the time of the murders and never seriously argued that she was the mystery women. Norma is a likely candidate though.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    Yes, very sorry Norma Demler.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    No, I don’t think we need special legislation we need natural Justice and due process applied as would happen in the Courts and as can be reviewed by the Courts then precedent would lead the way.

    Due process in the strictest sense is theistic in that it involves the making of an oath. You can’t get due process from an atheistic system like NZ’s civil state. Only fundamental constitutional reform can fix this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. flipper (4,084 comments) says:

    N-NZ, Rowan, Judith, Kanz and Nookin…
    Thanks for the sensible discussion.
    This will be long.

    At the risk of being labelled a “bigot” for telling the truth about people who stole (retrospectively legalised) $500,000 oif taxpayers money when their party was broke, I stand by what I said. It is NOT bigotry to highlight established fact and hold miscreants to account in politics, law, and every field.

    BUT…
    The truth of the AA Thomas saga is fundamental to a just outcome for Pore, and inferentially Bain.
    As some will be aware, I have previously posted details in relation to the internal manoeuvring of the Thomas Royal Commission. I know much of the inside, publicly undisclosed detail from dinner table conversations with the actual participants.

    Let me state at the outset that the efforts of Booth, Sprott, Yallop, et al kept the issue in front of the public at a time when the judiciary had closed ranks and walked away. That was disgraceful, and an aspect inferentially covered by N-NZ above. Collins is simply lying when she says she cannot ask the Cabinet to intervene on Pore. Peter Williams QC has already reiterated that this was in fact done with Thomas. The inquiry by Adams-Smith was at the direction of Prime Minister Rob Muldoon, and was made over the objections of Crown Law, Crown Prosecutors, and Police. But it was the senile former Justice McGregor whose door step dismissal of Muldoon that sealed the fate of the Thomas conspiracy. When the man charged with reviewing all evidence in the Thomas case looked at Muldoon and said he did not know who he was, it became clear to RDM that McGregor had simply done “the decent thing” for his brethren — at the cost of the continued incarceration of an innocent man.

    The first Adams-Smith report was widely published with only one section (then still under investigation) being redacted. The second resulted in a conversation between Muldoon and McLay. The latter was instructed not to involve Crown Law or the Police prior to Cabinet discussion and decision. Muldoon took his recommendation to The Cabinet, endorsed it, and instructed McLay to attend to the paper work. It was done, almost that quickly, and the Police first learned of the pardon from news media.

    The Royal Commission faced an initial legal challenge (I will be kind and call it “clarification request”) from the CL/Police establishment on the meaning of a free pardon – a clarification that served to aid Thomas as time went by. The Royal Commission (Taylor, Gordon & Johnston) was faced with obfuscation, .lies and half-truths (a reminder that Fisher had a piece of that), but they saw through them all. And, as I have previously commented on other threads, the former Archbishop Johnston was the original author of the words condemning Hutton. He would have gone further and linked Morris, but as one of the Commissioners told me, “We could not link all the dots.” Some will recall that Morris , having been told that Crown Law had received instructions not to become involved, appointed his personal legal counsel to protect his interests.

    That history is of vital import in placing the Bain, Pora, Watson, Haig and other cases into a 2013 context.

    Any Judicial pin-head dancing is all very well, and of course, important for oess. But the judiciary does NOT exist to protect only the State or he Crown. It exists, does it not, to oversee the just administration/enforcement of New Zealand law.
    The real issue that should concern all within the legal profession, and certainly those engaged in public policy advice and politics, is the abuse of the process to hide incompetence (at best), if not malfeasance or criminal negligence at worst. That must stop and any persons bent on upholding the present corrupt practice need to stop and think again. Dealing with matters in the abstract ignores the point of the law – humanity and justice.

    Bain, in a nutshell, boils down to this:
    • Bain sought compensation and agreed with the Crown (Cabinet/MoJ) on a process.
    • Bain agree that he would accept the outcome, whether for or against.
    • The crown, having accepted and put in place the agreement, made a binding commitment to Bain.
    • The appointed independent authority found for Bain .
    • Collins on advice from Crown law and Police have attempted to welsh on the deal.
    • Collins has both lied and obfuscated on the issue.
    • The HC may not be able to instruct Collins, but it could most certainly hold that the Crown is as much bound to accept its agreement with Bain – as Bain would be if Binnie had reported differently.
    • In the end, the fine, if not esoteric, legal points will fascinate many. But the media will, reflecting their intense loathing of Collins, ensure that she is hung out to dry. Spin doctors will not help her.
    • The Cabinet will not allow the issue to become gangrenous n 2014 because it knows that New Zealanders will not tolerate duplicity.
    Pora boils down to this:
    • Collins is obfuscating
    • The Cabinet/Collins could do the decent thing by following the Thomas example.
    • The can of worms once opened should be subject to very close scrutiny, and the immediate prosecution of ALL involved in this and other similar issues, the result.
    • As N-NZ has well said, it would focus minds on a proper process.
    • Period.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Flipper

    Excellent post Flipper.

    It seems as though we have had decades of discontent. AAT, the Erebus disaster and inquiry, the Bazley report, the Chch Civic Creche and Peter Ellis, Farmer, Haig, Bain, Burdett Murder & Pora & the 24 other victims, Scott Watson, Lundy? and so on…. what will it take before we realise that the system is failing at the most serious level.

    We have all these examples, but how many have gone undetected, and how many guilty people have failed to be apprehended due to the same problems? What is the reality – and who is responsible for finding out?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Rowan (2,410 comments) says:

    Well said Flipper
    The arrogant tax lawyer masquerading as NZ’s Justice Minister should follow what happened in the Thomas case, but predictably crown law are adopting (in your words) “obfuscation, lies and half-truths”
    Lets hope as you put that by her actions Judith will “ensure that she is hung out to dry” and sooner rather than later

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    What is the reality – and who is responsible for finding out?

    Those who empower the system are responsible. If you want to find the reality of it then you’ve got to be able to tell the difference between faith and truth.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ uglytruth

    Good answer!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote