One hat fits all.

Time to move on from the idoicy of Taylor and Parker, one can be too easily distracted by fools.

One hat fits all. That's what our current compensation process is, something like a mixed metaphor of stupidity. An example of this is the often touted case of Rex Haig, which the sisters like to rely on in their fear that David will be paid out.

Rex Haigh was never exonerated, probably impossible for him to have ever realistically overcome the fact that he was involved in some way in the murder which he was convicted of. Now, to draw a parrallel between that case and the Bain case is sheer lunancy. David was acquitted and there was no suggestion at any point that if wasn't the killer he was still somehow involved, yet both men have to endure the same onerous process to gain compensation that uses, what increasingly will be seen, as an 'artifical' law or set of rules drawn up for the Crown to have protection from claims against it for false imprisonment, miscarriages of justice and so forth. The ambiguity of that 'duel' role one cap fits all is that David has already been found to have suffered an actual miscarriage of justice, gone on and been acquitted by the supreme arbiters of guilt and innocence, a jury. Yet he must line up for the same procedure to exercise in his 'case' as Haigh who was never accquitted.

I admit to being outspoken about compensation, that we don't have it as a right, that's it's process is not enshrined in law but rather by rules applied by the Government of the day. It's a black mark on NZ and must be a dilemma for David who has publically, and correctly said, that he's proved his innocence. My view is that the rules should be challenged, an application made that challenges the rules but also sets out the basic ingredients of the forensic proof which proved Robin's suicide and that he had blood on his hands before he died. Then if the claim is rejected seek Judicial Review of the process, with the supporting argument of the forensic evidence. The primary argument would remain constitutional, denial of due process etc, but supported with the obvious - Robin's suicide.

This would bring it back to the Courts, all the way to the Privy Council if necessary to give some clarity, and hopefully an Act from the Lawmakers, for all such cases in the future, including an individual body made up of a number of independent people and professionals able to more quickly deal with cases of alleged false imprisonment of which it seems we have at least 5 and perhaps up to 10 each year. We need it as a modern and safe society that protects all its members and independent of politicians or their nominees.