Do the Judiciary have a 'natural' tolerance to elements that form a Miscarriage of Justice?

In a recent blog below and others else I wrote about common elements of MOJs. Understanding those common elements and the response to them by the Judiciary, Justice Department etc, probably displays why they continue. No industry or public service in New Zealand would tolerate elements that repeated themselves over time to the detriment of what that industry or public service was designed to deliver. A faulty valve of a type from a single manufacturer that failed consistently would be abandoned, as would hospital apparatus that showed a tendency to fail and therefore cause disruption to services or worse - it's the way of progress and delivering outcomes. Disruptive events or failures become historical, a pattern or template of things to be avoided, monitored, or discontinued over time.

Then why, does the Judiciary and Justice system have no historical knowledge or template of events common to miscarriages of Justice? Some would immediately say because the facilitate it or have a tolerance to it, of course such views for some members of the public destroy faith in the system - and written here and else where are numerous cases where blameless members of society are indoctrinated, by their experiences with the system, to hold the view that the 'system' is corrupt. Where does the blame lie for that? There can be only one place because our lawyers, or at least some of them, have been ground down to holding views of potential mojs that are myopic, or that fighting against such things is just too difficult, or that the system is self-protecting and one shouldn't rock the boat. Whatever the case, faith in the system is eroded.

In times when 'zero tolerance' has become a fashionable phrase, I wonder why the Judiciary and department officials haven't adopted a 'zero tolerance' in cases that show investigative corruption, the common things, such a faulty identifications, 'discovery' of evidence in a crime scene are exhaustive searches failed to find the particular evidence earlier, 'stool pigeons,' faulty dna or forensic analysis, hidden evidence, illogical Crown reconstructions that defy logistical test and so on. Though the very opportunity to wonder why these things are tolerated opens the door to the invitation that there is collusion of some sort at work, even if it be a sub-conscious reaction or inclination to be 'on side' with the system - eventually this undermines the system.

Another area of note here, is that when mojs start to become unpicked by diligent members of the public, lawyers or other professionals, the Courts show a willingness to look beyond the 'tainted' evidence for support from peripheral evidence, which on it's own from the outset wouldn't have been strong enough to sustain a conviction. In other words they go looking for something to uphold the evidence that has failed, a complete reversal of the process of our law, and something which Judges warn juries about in final addresses is that they are not to look beyond the critical evidence for something which might support a conclusion they could draw unless there is a firm connection of some sort. Our Appeal Courts have been criticised for placing themselves as members of a jury for the obvious reason that a jury are people drawn from all aspects of life, each with their own experiences, and not with legal backgrounds within a system that any Judge must have. None of this withstands the view that corrupt or tainted evidence should, with few exceptions, destroy a suspect conviction or Crown case.

Something very troubling at the moment is the Watson case, where the independent reviewer of the case decided there was some need to speak to discredited 'prison informers' again, and this would be an example where when other aspects of the case don't hold water - particularly weak parts of the original case are looked at as significant despite having already failed. Likewise the failure of ids in the Watson and Hall cases, if they fail, or were improperly obtained, or undisclosed - out the door they should go, along with the conviction.

There should be no anxiety about tossing out failed or suspect evidence, and likewise the whole case where appropriate under the doctrine of experience or 'history' of the elements of mojs. Because when they are bitterly held onto the system destroys public belief in it self. There should never be anything personal attached to considering the reputation of the police or Judiciary, or the system itself when observing factors that weaken or destroy a conviction, because the system is therefore working against itself and not in the public interest. There should be no hint that the police or the system is self-protecting and every effort should be made to enhance that, one bent cop, or inquiry head, is one too many - yet we see a whole system capable of falling over itself in denial of the obvious, in the future that will be seen as a type of madness and those that looked elsewhere for support of something that has already failed at critical levels as corrupt.