ge/tabid/423/articleID/268848/Default.aspx
" .to show extraordinary circumstances: in those cases one would normally
expect to see proof of innocence beyond reasonable doubt, which is a very
difficult thing to show; or perhaps abuse of authority by the police or
prosecuting agency or something very special of that kind."
"I don't doubt that [Binnie] was very thorough in investigating every avenue
before he came to his conclusion."
AnalystDecember 4, 2012 6:58 AM
Robert Fisher, QC, who has been commissioned to 'review' Binnie's report, has previously spoken respectfully about Binnie.
The media seem to think it is the amount of compensation that Binnie recommended that is being questioned, although Key has refused to answer that. The media have seized on the figure of $2 million as a probable payout, but there are no grounds for that figure. If we use the amount Arthur Allen Thomas received as a starting point (as we should as it's the only real precedent in NZ), plus the fact that it was a much worse crime that David was accused of (more people, his own family), plus the public opprobrium David has had to suffer, then it seems likely Binnie's recommendation will have been for substantially more than $2 million. That is something which it would be wise to get a local opinion on, and to do so does not necessarily suggest any discredit to Binnie - not a thing that Collins is likely to do lightly.
If Binnie has reasoned his calculations, then Fisher will be checking that reasoning.
We wait...
The media seem to think it is the amount of compensation that Binnie recommended that is being questioned, although Key has refused to answer that. The media have seized on the figure of $2 million as a probable payout, but there are no grounds for that figure. If we use the amount Arthur Allen Thomas received as a starting point (as we should as it's the only real precedent in NZ), plus the fact that it was a much worse crime that David was accused of (more people, his own family), plus the public opprobrium David has had to suffer, then it seems likely Binnie's recommendation will have been for substantially more than $2 million. That is something which it would be wise to get a local opinion on, and to do so does not necessarily suggest any discredit to Binnie - not a thing that Collins is likely to do lightly.
If Binnie has reasoned his calculations, then Fisher will be checking that reasoning.
We wait...
By the time of the 6 oclock news last night the Prime Minister had clarified that an opinion was being sought on some of the recommendations (s) included in Justice Binnie's report. That plural is very important because whilst Binnie was asked to appraise whether or not David Bain was innocent on the obviously single point from which more issues arise such as police or prosecution misconduct. Analyst above has given a scenario that might be relevant to what Fisher might be required to look into and of course procedural misconduct is another. However for the hate-siters who were crowing all night in the belief that Binnie had somehow disqualified his opinion by reading one of Karam's books will certainly have no respite from their hangovers of the Bain case when they become acquainted with the link above and in particular the measured statement by Fisher regarding Binnie's decision.
Judith Collins indicated in recent months that the police couldn't act in the same manner as the criminals they put in prison. In the case of ex DS Milton Weir he has admitted under oath misleading the first Jury. Another detective admitted not being truthful about the computer turn on time in trial - pivotal evidence which showed Bain had not been home when the computer was started. At the second trial a detective gave evidence 15 years late when he claimed that David had asked for 'his' glasses on the morning of the murders. Of course this was when the Crown case was floundering, the glasses were known not to be David's (unlike at the 1st trial where that information was withheld,) that his vision was 75% normal without glasses anyway, that he was hardly likely to ask for glasses that weren't his own, were broken and of no use to him or linked to the crime. These are all matters that Binnie's attention must have turned to, remembering that he in fact interviewed Milton Weir as part of his investigation into the guilt or innocence of David Bain. It's unlikely that Binnie would not have given a summary of how the Miscarriage of Justice occurred and who he saw as involved beyond those mentioned here. Those people of course have 'rights' to defend themselves and I think that is at least part of what Fisher might be inquiring into. Judith Collins may be mindful of her own duty to not ignore crime within the police ranks, and also to give proper consideration to how to deal with it in this report.
Bob Jones and Michael Reed have justifiably come out swinging saying that there is a cover-up, I'm reserving my opinion on that if only because any cover up will be pulled apart in this case, nobody from Joe Karam at the core will retire from that for numerous reasons, one being what has happened in the Crewe case. People are unwilling to let things float off into the distance with promises of how procedures have been changed or disciplined tightened. If it was good enough to break the law to put David Bain in prison then it is good enough for the law breakers to taste prison time. Whatever the situation Judith Collins should have kept the applicant informed - all the way down the line.
Chris Gallivan guesses 'due dilligence'.
ReplyDeleteThe counterspinners guess (improbably and desperately) that Binnie's report is in some way defective and have been vocally defamatory of one of the commonwealth's premier jurists - which is very funny!
Bloggers and journos guess a variety of things, but mostly that there is something in Binnie's report that the government find uncomfortable: probably strong criticism of the police and legal system.
Politicians keep saying that it's difficult because 'the country is divided' on this matter. But that should not have any play in this at all: this should be about justice, not a popularity contest for the pollies.
I say this is stupid mismanagement. It may well be due dilligence, but given the history of this case it is inevitable that this behaviour by Collins leads to a suspicion of cover-up. If she had been open - communicated properly with David and his representatives (no longer 'the defence' now there is nothing to defend); explained why she had commissioned Fisher to give advice; then there wouldn't be all this conjecture.
Judith Collins is a public servant. She works for us, and there are requirements laid down for her as a Minister and particularly as a Minister of Justice. To be just, fair, honest are just part of those requirements. There is an apparent lack of fairness and honesty in this secretive handling of what is happening. Binnie's and Fisher's reports need to be published in their entirety to counter the inevitable suspicion of malfeasance.
Fisher. The man who represented the Police on the AAT commission of inquiry. Who decided that Haig 'was involved' in some way. Who is known as 'the porno judge' after being caught viewing porn sites on his work computer.
ReplyDeleteUh huh. Good person to provide independent and unbiased review of Justice Binnie's work...*
*sarcasm intended.
I actually have no problem with Fisher. The problem is that it should be communicated to the public what he's been asked to look into, just the same as the earlier report was to look in the innocence or otherwise of David Bain. As it is now even Bain's legal team don't know yet they represent the applicant. Collins is treated this case with contempt. She is treating David as one might expect of a maximum security prisoner but not a free man.
ReplyDeleteAs for Fisher's earlier reviews of this type, I find it hard to argue with either decision, Farmer or Haig. I haven't read the Haig report recently, but I am not surprised when 'immunity' witnesses are involved in a case. If he had been asked to look at the appropriateness of the immunity and how that might have impacted on compensation he may have made given a different recommendation.