Kent Parker - defeated and signing off?

Is the following, which I shall analyse, Kent Parker throwing the towel in having realise he's beaten on all fronts?

------------------------------------------
Kent Parker I've decided that we should make our submission to the Ministry of Justice in mid September, so if people would like to make more suggestions please do: draft-submission-to-ministry-of-justice

Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice | davidbain: CounterSpin
davidbain.counterspin.co.nz
Sign the petition to help prevent David Bain getting compensation. Don't believe Joe Karam's propaganda. Read the other side of the story
9 minutes ago ·
------------------------------------
then this
-----------------------------------------

Draft Submission to Ministry of Justice
I would like to open public discussions on a submission which we can forward to the Ministry of Justice so that we can walk away from this satisfied that we have taken the required steps to put forward our concerns about things in the justice system that might have contributed to what happened in 2009 surrounding the bain retrial. The following is just a draft of suggestions to make to the Ministry. If you have edit permission to this document then feel free to add bits.

Of course the words 'walk away' may be the most poignant as Kent prepares to either try and settle the defamation case against him or indeed to try and fight it.

Sub Judice

Members of the Justice for Robin Bain Group are concerned that rules regarding publication of material about the Bain case were broken in 2007 when the book David and Goliath was reprinted. In 2007 the Solicitor General gave a directive which included the following: "Guilt or innocence of an accused person is not decided by the media or public opinion polls. Those who attempt to usurp or try to influence the trial process risk facing a charge of contempt of court." Reports of jury behaviour following the Bain trial and the short deliberation period of the jury suggest that publication of this book may have caused the kind of influence which sub judice rules were developed to prevent. The public needs to have some confidence that the trial process cannot be usurped by such media events.

The above is a wrap up of the tired arguments that Joe Karam's book was somehow instrumental in a properly instructed Jury reaching a verdict, when we all know the Jury were warned at the outset and conclusion of the Trial to disregard anything they may have heard or read in the media or any other source regarding the case. More than anything the 'submission' is a convenient hook on which the hate-siters having failed to subvert the Course of Justice - hang their hat as a type of surrender and shift of blame. The directive quoted from the Solicitor General related to this warning given to the Jury in a broader sense. The MOJ will be unmoved by attacks on the Jury or suggestions that there is anything improper that they were able to come to a decision quickly on a very straight forward case of murder/suicide. The Public do have confidence, it's the purpose of Kent Parker and the hate-siters to undermine that confidence.

Hearsay

An amendment to the Court rules should compel any accused running a defence, which includes the suggestion that another did the crime, to give evidence and face cross-examination at their trial. Failing that, where the accused has run such a defence and not given evidence, the trial judge ought to be permitted to instruct a jury that they can take any inference from the accused's failure to give evidence that they so wish. The original purpose of the privilege against self incrimination or the right to silence was to prevent the extraction of confessions under torture.

Here the dear fellow is wanting to change centuries old law in an effort that would be seen to mitigate his, and his fellows, failure to understand a basic case that should never have gone to Court, and which was taken to Court based on mantra and misapprehensions put abroad to bolster a weak case. The association between the right of silence and David Bain does not apply as any moment of time in the history of the tenet, because David Bain was not silent, he made statements to the police which were read to the Court and he gave evidence for many hours in the first Trial and was cross-examined. Clearly there can be no suggestion that the Privy Council took from any of those statements, evidence in chief or cross examination, that David had in anyway confessed or made a damning statement that must have proved his guilt. Also clearly, the Christchurch Jury, agreed with the Privy Council on that point, have also heard, all that evidence.

Length of Trial

The Bain retrial has highlighted how the length of a trial can have a number of effects which limit the efficacy of a criminal trial as follows:

It limits the potential pool of jurors to those who have large amounts of time to spare or who are able to live on a reduced income for a period of months.
It increases the cost.
It can produce a familiarization effect with a defendant similar to the Stockholm Effect.
Members of the legal profession might argue that a trial should be whatever length is required in order to show all the evidence, however this seems a weak argument given the number of rules that exist for suppressing what evidence can be used in a trial. In the Bain retrial the Privy Council ordered that the jury get to see all evidence, but it was revealed immediately after the trial that some potentially crucial bits of evidence were suppressed because they were deemed prejudicial to the defendant or on the basis of some other rule. If such rules exist then it seems prudent given the three items above, that rules are also put in place to limit the duration of the trial and discipline both parties to put forward concise arguments taken from the best of their evidence.

One uncommonly long trial is not cause for concern. It was handled very well by all concerned. Trying to control what parties say or don't say is also unnecessary because Judge's do not tolerate digression. The fact that Kent suggests they do again shows his Contempt of Court. I think Kent, if he fails to settle his case, will be getting a sharp lesson, that defendants are not in Court to advocate for change or offer criticism of the Justice system but rather to defend the allegations brought against them in a logical way supported by evidence. The man is a dreamer. His hate-filled rantings in cyberspace will not permitted in the High Court and are actually the reason why he is due in Court. Keep up Kenty boy.

It is understandable that in a criminal case where the defendant is a wealthy individual that a trial might go on for months and the cost be astronomical but there seems little justification for the same to apply where the defence is paid for out of legal aid.

Ditto above.

Lay Advocates


The Bain trial has also brought to light the prospect that advocates with no formal qualifications and an obvious bias towards a defendant can claim fees through legal aid to the level of $95 an hour. This seems anomalous on two counts:

this is basically an unskilled worker getting an hourly rate that very few skilled workers can attract
the advocate in this case was known to be very biased in his judgment of the case and the defendant's role in it
For the sake of efficacy in terms of cost and in terms of producing a just outcome it would seem that Legal Aid should review whatever practice led to this occurrence. As taxpayers this appears to be a loophole that needs to be filled.

We propose that Lay Advocates who are to receive legal aid for legal services should go through a more formal process of appointment such as be required to undertake e.g a Certificate in Legal Practice. There need to be more controls over what she or he may or not do. It seemed unusual that the Lay Advocate in the Bain case was allowed such a prominent position in the court and was even allowed to help in the demonstration of a key item of evidence.

This is a thinly veiled criticism and jealousy of Joe Karam. What nonsense, those that heard the recent debate they will be aware (to the hate-siters displeasure) Joe Karam's absolute knowledge of the case. While others will certainly be aware of the respect given that knowledge by the Judiciary, as it rightly should. Kent seems to think the Judiciary should say, 'we don't see you have a role Mr Karam, despite your exhaustive and comprehensive knowledge of the case which is second to none, and we don't see our role as needing to be fully informed - and besides that old Kenty doesn't like you.' Right.

Just a tip for Kent and his deadbeats on this Karam was not a 'lay advocate' at the Trial, I know of no occasion when he might have acted as a 'lay advocate.' Once again, Kent misunderstands the process he endeavours to reconstruct. Oh boy.

The Jury System

The jury system has been in use for over a millennia and well overdue for revision. Modern science has made court room evidence a lot more complicated and difficult to comprehend for lay jury members. When a case involves complex evidential matters we support the following suggestions for improvement:

Appointing judges or experts to work alongside the jury to help determine complex matters of evidence.
Moving towards an inquisitorial system

More nonsense here from Campmother, any fair system would have had no problem determining Robin Bain as the killer, he left all the clues in the world. But Kent, desperate so desperate he be, finds fault everywhere because he could and can't understand a simple murder suicide and because he doesn't like a dead man to be talked about in any other than an approving way. Kent made a decision and worked backwards, the route of a fool.