The Crown paid out Bill Wilson, albeit he lost his career (or so it seems) through no fault of his own judgement. But the conclusion to the situation was not determined in a Court of Law, the only judgment I am aware of was the High Court invited the Judiciary Conduct Commissioner to review the decision regarding Bill Wilson, a Judicial Review in other words of a decision found wanting.
The case might prove interesting for Bain case followers. Here are some of the contrasts, David's case was concluded through the courts following a finding that there had been an actual Miscarriage of Justice, David was found not guilty by his peers, having earlier been found to have been denied due process by the Peerage (Law Lords.) In any event one conclusion follows a finding that there was a denial of due process (a MOJ) and that the case was then tried before a Jury and found wanting. The other (Wilsons) was abridged to a settlement with the Government (well, a month following) after it was found by the High Court that natural justice had been denied the now former Judge, not a Judicial decision (the settlement) but rather a political one to discontinue any proceedings on the basis of an 'offer' by Bill Wilson to resign. It should be obvious the case against David and all the admissible evidence resulted in him being found not guilty. On the other hand, we might never know the true circumstances of what was alleged against Bill Wilson short of the fact that the allegations were prematurely and unfortunately made public and 'tried' to some degree in the media.
Of course David has been 'tried' in the media for years, and remains the victim of a campaign from hate-sites that include as members paedophile supporters, ex police or persons with an interest in maintaining a facade that evidence hadn't been manufactured or withheld against David, nor that the investigation had fallen far below expected, professional, standards. Despite that, David prevailed, because a lot of 'evidence' against him wasn't evidence at all, or was represented in way that was beyond logical reality or cognisance. The man was found innocent, having already been found to be the victim of MOJ. Now a Government 'tries' him again in a manner that undermines all traditional principles of Law, tries him in Camera as a small band of nuts continue an absurd campaign against him.
So while the contrasts are great, but both men fall to the same side when matters are clearly analysed, both were denied due process (David at least initially, and if the need for a retrial is overlooked) but when due process was fully applied both were found blameless - David, though in respect of procedure by a fully informed Jury of his Peers, while Bill Wilson was able to say, argue, that in his case the true principles of Law had not been followed and that no true or just result or Judgement could therefore be determined.
Bill Wilson ultimately used Judicial Review to crack open the MOJ that had been launched against him. That process of Review is, and remains open to David, many of the same principles are at stake for David as were for Bill Wilson or any person before the law, in David's case he returns somewhat wounded and campaign wise from a prison nightmare, while Bill Wilson had not become fully submerged in an ongoing Judicial Process because of erroneous 'evidence' put in the public arena by a former Judge for some apparent sanctimonious, self-satisfaction. In Bill Wilson's case the Government cited financial costs and pragmatism for its reason for 'withdrawal,' issued a figure of around $2 million. In David's case it is more than $20 million and rising, where is the pragmatism, the recognition of due process or false imprisonment, for David? Will it be in a Minister's decision in Cabinet, or will it be in the Courts. Should it ever have been a Minister's decision to try again a person acquitted under the law after 15 years? Either way, he will win.
No comments:
Post a Comment