lawyers review and comment on Kirsty McDonald's report before any decision by the Minister as being unprecedented, because the same is happening in the Compensation Case of David Bain. As far back as 2010 The Minister instructed Justice Department Solicitors to work with the Lawyers of David Bain. So in fact the Watson and Bain cases are aligned in that respect, falling within the same basket.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.
No comments:
Post a Comment