Legal remedy.

Much has been speculated about 'compensation' that may be paid to David Bain to address his wrongful imprisonment. I reject the word compensation in the sense that many commentators have described it, I do this because the 'compensation' process that has been applied in other cases over the years is untested in law as far as my research tells me. Before going on to explain my view I need to clarify what for some might be confusing titles as they apply to legal remedy that is available to David.

Wrongful imprisonment: It is fair to assume that rightful imprisonment is lawful imprisonment and that therefore wrongful imprisonment is thereby unlawful application of the law. In the case of David, he spent 13 years in prison subject to an 'Actual miscarriage of Justice' a determination set down by the highest appellant court of New Zealand until recent years. My opinion is that any citizen that has some form of punishment or loss applied to them unlawfully, or by virtue of an 'Actual Miscarriage of Justice,' is entitled to legal remedy not decided by the whim of the 'King' The 'King,' being in modern times, Government.

Compensation: is something of a misnomer particularly as applied by Executive Power (A Minister in Cabinet) as is the case in New Zealand. To this point 'compensation' masquerades as 'legal remedy' without, to this point, it's confirmation tested by the Courts. This appears to have resulted from an improvised formula for someone seeking 'legal remedy' for false imprisonment to deal with, or find favour from a Government of the day. This appears to be a 'convenient' step helpful to the Government to adjudicate on wrongs rather than for such 'wrongs' to be adjudicated by law in The Courts. To me this is the Executive usurping the rights of an individual to seek lawful remedy and also impinges on the independence of The Courts.

Our Law: is largely silent on the subject of compensation or legal remedy for wrongful imprsonment as to this point, having not been asked. I think this has happened because false imprisonment, or remedy by compensation of some sort has not been tested - largely because Governments have sought to deal with such situations independently. This action 'independently' of the Courts is a loss of rights until a point in time when there might be a judicial review of a Government's decision not to settle with a legal remedy for false imprisonment or such like, or when an applicant is unsatisfied with the settlement. Once either of these steps are taken to The Courts the rights of citizens will have returned from the 'whim of the King' to the proper place of remedy, the Courts.

I shall close on these points for now with the following: it is a rejection of centuries old law for a man not to have guilt or innocence determined by his peers, for a person to need to prove his innocence by any greater test than applied by his peers is Executive denial of Justice. I say this particularly in David's case. There is no argument that can satisfy the assertation that David would not have spent 13 years prison but for an 'actual MOJ' and that his acquittal - the announcement of 5 not guilty verdicts completes all principles in Law and should not be adjudicated on by any other body, particularly one unable to show independence of political whim and seeking to work outside legal remedy as entitled to any citizen through the Courts.