finally reached Justice Minister Simon Power. The review took 2 years and cost $143,000, undertaken by Kristy McDonald at a cost between $350 to $400 per hour. Translated to an average hourly rate of $400 per hour, the actual review by time would have taken just over 7 weeks with an estimated hours worked per week as 50. Taking into account logistic difficulties, or inquiries to and advice from experts one could reasonably expect the nearly 2 months spent on the report could be tripled to 6, so what happened to the other 18months?
Unfortunately without explanations about that one could be left wondering about the competency of the review, and also the lack of priority it appears to have been given. Overall an impression is given about a reluctance to move by the Crown, a dragging of feet and we see history repeat itself where no urgency is applied to potential Miscarriages of Justice, no single body, financed by the Crown, able to dig into suspect convictions with energy and experience from having performed the task before. It's far from robust Justice and the idea that a Minister appoints somebody, for reasons of his or her own, to investigate such matters seems too casual and likely to greeted with scepticism by the public at large.
If people can robustly be thrown into prison on suspect evidence the same robust power should be available for those unfortunates to have hard questions asked in a timely manner by a properly constructed and designed independent body to weigh into the fray, with both power and neutral concepts of the soundness of the conviction. Others may have seen the interview with Aaron Farmer's mother recently where she was reduced to having to write letter after letter to anyone she could think of to have her innocent son released from prison. It's bloody mickey mouse, outdated and does not serve the master principle that 'justice must be seen to be done' with attendant haste.
Ultimately because of New Zealand's dim record of falsely imprisoning the innocent the conclusion reached by the public is that the Police do get it wrong and it is bloody hard, almost impossible to overcome. Responsibility for that lies with Parliament, advice should be taken from the Law Commission, The Chief Justice, The Law Society on the construction of a credible and accountable body being established to allow people such as Aaron Farmer's mother, Scott Watson's father, the late Vivien Harrison a place to take their concerns where they, and the public can have confidence that there is a passage out of prison for the falsely imprisoned that is not through the same corridors of the Department that have imprisoned them.
Petitioning the Governer General, as Scott Watson has done, is proven to a laborious task that ultimately reports back to the Justice Department anyway. The same folder that could have been sitting on Simon Power's desk 3 years ago only arrives now. And even the issue of where that folder or brief should go needs also to be look at. A statute other than habeas corpus should allow reviews or inquiries to go directly to the Courts, and not to the Government of the day. The procedure as it stands looks weighted in favour of the Crown. Who benefit's from a 2 year inquiry that only took something like 350 hours to complete, not Scott Watson, nor an interested public.
Before closing on the subject, in some details of the review it is revealed that Kirsty McDonald was unsuccessful in meeting one of the 2 'secret' witnesses who had recanted their testimony against Scott. Begging me to ask am I the only one that can see the King as no clothes. If this 'secret' person has recanted his testimony, throw the whole blinking lot out. Don't ask Kirsty McDonald to interview him, the testimony is shot and Kirsty McDonald interviewing him gives the impression that this person's evidence is important. Well, how can it be he's given two different stories and Kirsty's efforts to a sceptical mind present a conclusion that she might be trying to 'shore' up the evidence rather that rightfully dismiss it as it should be. Again this is an area for the Courts and history shows that as the strength of convictions is weakened a reliance is promoted on other material formerly considered to be marginal or less than important in upholding the conviction.
No comments:
Post a Comment