John Key shadow boxes with the Bain case.

Post Cabinet presser Transcription

[question] Prime Minister. Where to here on David Bain – the David Bain issue?

[JK] [visibly uncomfortable] Er yeah, so Minister Collins gave Cabinet a, you know, a really brief update about the process, there wasn’t um, any conclusions drawn [looks at notes] or, ah, a huge amount of debate undertaken. She simply indicated the next steps of the process that she’s looking at embarking upon, and agreed to come back to Cabinet with further recommendations for us. She’s likely to do that the next available Cabinet which is 4^th February.

[Question] Is it likely that another person will be appointed to enquire into the deal?

[JK] Well they are, they’re all the sorts of issues that she’s grappling with so that’s exactly right.

[Question] So can you just outline what are exactly the next steps?

[JK] Well she’ll need to consider the process that now has to happen and so effectively if you think about it Rob Fisher QC didn’t complete his report , he completed part 1 of his report which was the critiquing of Binnie’s assessment of the situation, um, there’s other work that he could do, or another person could do, either domestically or off-shore… so there’s a range of different potential options so she’ll come back with some more advice in due course.

[question] Are you concerned about the expense?

[JK] [visibly uncomfortable] Er, well look, at one level obviously I’m always cautious with the expenditure of government money, so maybe a person’d say well, the money doesn’t matter and to a certain degree that’s always true and it’s not true. So yes of course I’m mindful of that, but I’m also really mindful that it’s really important that this is done professionally and right; and this is a very high-profile situation: if you think about these kinds of cases in New Zealand’s history, ones with this level of profile are, you can count on one hand. So, so money is important but I think it’s actually more important that we reach a robust conclusion that New Zealanders can understand why we’ve reached that decision.

[question] So are you saying that second review is going to take place?

[JK] No, I’m saying she’s going to come back with advice on what the next step it.

[Question] So is the door actually closed on the Binnie report now, is that shelved?

[JK] I think it’s fair to say that the Minister doesn’t feel confident to take a recommendation based on the Binnie report to Cabinet, so in that regard, yes, and I think that if you look at the work that Rob Fisher did and his critiquing of that, my assessment of others’ review of Rob Fisher’s work is that they agree with what he’s done. They’re not finding fault in his legal arguments that he’s presented about the Binnie report, so I think in that regard both the Minister… Well, the Minister’s been vindicated in the steps that she took.

[question] So logically, if that report is in the government, if that’s the government’s view, there’d have to be a second report wouldn’t there?

[JK] Well, most probably, but as I say, let’s just wade through the process of what happens next.

Above I've called John Key and Cabinet's handling of the Bain case as shadow boxing. In the now famous words of the 2IC of the Bain case that the police were not chasing 'ghosts' as reference as to why Robin Bain was never investigated as a suspect we now see the modern day counterpart. John Key and his cabinet failing to address the issue of David's innocence and by proxy blaming him for that. But first consider the 'tool' for doing this, they blame the Binnie report. Well hello, David didn't chose Binnie' the John Key Government did. David Bain also didn't write the Binnie report and was excluded from commenting on the criticisms raised about it by the Crown and police - the two parties identified in Binnie's report of conduct which led to false imprisonment. Ask yourself, were the police or Crown ever going to be happy with such a finding, whether it is true or not, but how complicit is this Government in denying David Bain the justice that has eluded him for so long, deeply. The contents of the report have been savaged by the Government and continue to be so, no distance has been placed between the Government and what is essentially a legislative process in all developed countries in the World. It's an area where the Government have said 'we'll be impartial, we'll judge with the integrity of the highest Courts, politics will not enter.' Yet politics has entered, right down to government departments releasing material under the Official Information Act in record time to attack the Binnie report as final 'act' before Christmas.

The Minister has run a public commentary on the Bain case and a private one with police and Crown without a word to the applicant David Bain. She has changed positions many times and the 'consistency' of her story has been shredded by her own words. But most clearly all the effort has been about what Binnie was  asked to do in a procedural sense. There are no real issues about the evidence he was asked to decide upon, only his methodology. I think Binnie got it a 100% right, and that it is also clear that like any reviewer he was willing, had he been given the opportunity, to either demonstrate his decisions or answer any criticisms of them. In short he wasn't for hire for an 'required' opinion, his mandate was in getting to the bottom of the Bain case to determine if David was innocent or not. The main argument against his opinion (although) they vary, is that he didn't step back from the evidence at times to look at the overall aspects of the case as well as the single 'threads.' He says that he did and it seems to be demonstrated to the satisfaction of some of his reviewers and a good number of the public. But what short of demonstrating the overall context of the case in words, explaining what and how he considered things in words was he to do? The farce of the Government's position is quickly becoming two distinct features both which have obvious answers.

1/ Was Binnie meant to not only write what his deliberations were but was he also actually required to have himself filmed. Say for example that on July 2nd 2012, "I am sitting at my desk and it is 9am and I am now thinking about the evidence of incest. It is now 5 minutes since I  began to think about the incest and am now at 9.05 going to test the worth of value of that evidence against the overall weight of the case. It is now 30 seconds later and I reject the evidence of incest as having any bearing on my overall consideration as to the guilt or innocent of David Bain." Has the world of Justice reached the point where Judges need to muse aloud their deliberations or considerations or risk not being believed? Well, in NZ at this point, that's what's required of a Judge, particularly one who might be asked to 'assist' the Government reach a view that ought to be decided by legislation or by the Courts and not by a party to the act of false imprisonment.

2/ The second very evident feature is that the Bain case has been moved away from the evidence, and the key features which constitute the question of David's innocence, but not by himself - rather by the Government taking umbrage from the findings of it's own agent. David is not, repeat, is not responsible for appointing Binnie. While I make it clear I think Binnie's work is excellen.t if anyway he is off the mark - that is not David Bain's fault. David is still not getting a fair go.

But nobody should forget that while JK is shadow boxing with the issue the source of the shadow should not be forgotten. That source is embodied in 5 Law Lords, several QCs, an international Jurist, but most of all in that cornerstone of our Justice system 11 Jurors (the 12th having taken ill from memory) who answered the charges against David Bain 5 times - each with the answer of not guilty. No matter how much he deck chairs are moved, or how much one member of the Cabinet compliments or defends another there is a giant among them that dwarfs them into relative obscurity, the freedom of people to be Judged by their own, to have their rights preserved in a modern world by those beyond political influence - decisions like those of the Law Lords and Binnie already made long before politicians deigned themselves 'neutral' in order to take upon judgment of themselves and their careers.

Collins versus Justice

I've somewhat left this blog abandoned while getting back to work and debating the compensation issue on Kiwiblog. Whilst there might appear to be no product from that, the reality is that the hate-sites reps take every advantage to lie their heads off about the case as they have done for years, so there may be some merit in disproving their lines and cemented a link between their actions and that of the Minister - both being improper. The following is from a correspondent, much of which has been traversed before but which however is very relevant:

Just read Reid’s thing on kiwiblog, and I think he is onto something there. I think the argument about guilt/innocence is being encouraged as a distraction from the improper manipulation of the process.

Real leadership would protect the integrity of the system, which would mean compensating properly. Allowing poorly-informed opinionated public to dictate a matter like this shows poor leadership, poor judgment, and poor ethics. It also shows a cavalier attitude towards the principles of justice, making them subservient to popularity.

What has happened is:

David Bain served 13 years for a sentence quashed and a miscarriage of justice declared.

The Solicitor-general decided there should be a retrial, spending vast amounts of money, at which David was acquitted.

Therefore David served all that time for no valid sentence.

The Minister (Power) accepted his claim for compensation (thereby acknowledging it had merit) and referred it to a jurist (Binnie) to assess.

Binnie assessed it and came back with an answer: innocent on BoP, matters identified that he considers should be considered extraordinary circumstances.

Collins didn’t like the answer, and decided to capitalise on it to push the political agenda about keeping such things within NZ (ie consistent with getting rid of the Privy Council).

She commissioned Fisher to do a report with a pre-ordained outcome (clear from his instructions and from his report).

She provided Fisher with information that doesn’t bear scrutiny to inform his report (the ‘summary of issues’ and the Police report).

She did not inform the Bain team of what she was doing, neither did she permit them any opportunity to provide input (against ‘natural justice’).

She released the results into the public domain again without allowing the Bain team time for consideration or any opportunity for response.

Both Collins and Fisher made serious criticism of Binnie’s methods, knowledge and reasoning, without Binnie being given the opportunity to respond (rude and unprofessional)

Binnie responded nonetheless and it was clear that the accusations made (not understanding NZ law etc) were groundless.

The fundamental thing, in terms of justice, is whether David is entitled to compensation, consistent with the govt guidelines. The acceptance of his claim requires a decision that it has some merit. The referral to Binnie implies an intention to adhere to the processes of the guidelines.

The refusal to accept Binnie’s findings deviates from the process. This is political interference on a grand scale.

The suggestion that public opinion is being taken into account is political, not justice. The problem with public opinion is one of lack of knowledge: it is a matter to be managed by provision of information, not to be ruled by.


Something which Reid did refer to was of the general lack of experience in the National Party, his belief was that a leader such as Helen Clarke would never have allowed the case to drag on in this fashion. I agree with that the politics to this point has gone 'mad.' The mess has got bigger not smaller and there is not necessarily any end in sight. I've written before that the 'political' way out was to settle and rightly presume that the 'mess' would be seen to have been created in the past and that it was now time to move it on.

Interestingly Collins did tell Marcus Lush this week that she didn't want to see the case keep popping up or words to that effect. Ironical comment in that she more than any other has added to this controversial case and attends it with some political baggage, having been Minister of Police at the time the prosecution of the retrial was confirmed and also being seen to be 'linked' to police by virtue of her husband being ex police, and therefore many family friends are either police or ex police. However, the comment in itself is rational because the case will only go away in my opinion when a remedy has been offered and accepted. Both the correspondent above and Reid have said that perhaps the Minister will offer a compromise amount of compensation. She well could, but in fact a wise political decision would be a full and final agreement and I
think the Minister understands that any offer whether 'without prejudice  or not simply opens up the can of worms of negotiation that may still require intervention to the Courts. She should bite the bullet but who knows what she will do, one thing we do know or can fairly presume, and to which the Minister may have been referring in her comment to Marcus Lush, that the fight will not be over until a just result is secured for David.

4 Years of Hate-Sites, what have they achieved?

Foremost their 'rallying call' for right thinking NZers to sign a petition has failed. 'Right thinking' NZers were going to be falling over themselves to sign the petition and Kent spoke about even starting a political party. They were trolls on a roll, not that they realised that it was down hill and down the dunny.

Melanie White's 'heart felt' call for others to attend a memorial service for Robin Bain was even less successful only herself and a photographer arrived. But no worries - Melanie hadn't expected anyone to come anyway.

A court case continues against Kent and others and although having fought a desperate rear-guard action which culminated in Kent wailing on the steps of the Auckland High Court. He is surrounded on all sides and ready to be dispatched into infamy as his 'loyal' following and those that got in the cart watch. Members have come and gone. Trade Me have tossed them to the side are being forced to settle a case caused by the hate-siters. I suppose it is fair to say they've achieved nothing but that would overlook what they have shown in represented in our society.

After all, they have displayed everything that is bad in a fair and just society. They have lied, consistently and continue to lie. Each is unmoved by others lying apparently, because they are corrupted by 'noble cause.' Each of these individual believe they 'know' something that others don't, something which elevates them in their own minds. Something which also allows the right to break laws and human codes of decency. As example of this I've written about before is their 'rallying calls' for the group to do something. Kent on discovering the opportunity to multi vote on polls on the Bain case encouraged his members to do so and to use multi identities. Their intention of course fraudulent, their justification that they were 'right' and all seeing. The same sort of justification which they used to lay false complaints with the police in order to attempt to remove those that spoke out against them, or whom they couldn't intimidate or simply out reason. The hate-siters have shown a 'gang like' characteristic if you are not for them, then you are against them.

Let's look at who appears to be 'against' them, The Privy Council, a Jury, and more recently Ian Binnie. All groups which have one thing in common, impartiality. So while Karam, Reed and others are certainly not impartial, nor should they be, other who are impartial are treated with equal hatred. Why, because they don't 'agree' with the hate-siters  - whether it is that feature alone or not that incenses the hate-siters or if it is a combination of self-doubt, or even self-preservation can probably only be decided in individual cases. So they continue on regardless, 'if you are not for us - then you are the enemy' whether you are a prominent jurist, a law lord, a person in the street with your own mind - then you are a target in the 'us and them' world of the twisted sisters.

They'll try to disrupt your family, say they'll 'take' your children, interfere where they can in your personal life but if you say the apparently simple words 'Robin is innocent' you will be accepted and anything that you do will be accepted. Nobody will say, hold on lets stick to the facts and the truth. Nobody standing beside you will say that something is actually wrong or not true they will simply ignore it and defend any challenges.

Right now JFRB are active with support of some ex police, The Press, The Truth and by all appearances even the Minister of Justice. I've asked previously if the Right Honorable Judith Collins is a hate-siter, not because of her husband being an ex police officer, or herself having been an ex Minister of Police that authorized what is an apparently wasted 10 million dollars on unsuccessfully trying for a fourth or fifth time to turn a murder/suicide into something it wasn't - but rather because of the characteristics she shares with the hate-siters.

First of all, and in common with the hate-siters, she can be presumed to have supported the appointment of Ian Binnie because she was in the cabinet which approved his appointment. However immediately it seems that Binnie made a recommendation which the Minister didn't like she turned on him, right along with the hate-siters with the clear distinction that she  was able to launch a public attack against him unprecedented in NZ history. Then, as is common with the hate-siters, invention began. Binnie didn't understand NZ Law, he'd written a report that could lead itself to be scrutinized in Court, possibly invading privacy and civil rights, he'd sent 'unsolicited' follow ups for which he wouldn't be paid - inference he was trying to rip off the Country, he'd overlooked evidence - said not to be in his report but which was. Judith Collins showed no normal deference to the ex judge, just attacked him possibly assuming that he wouldn't reply. So as the hate-siters have treated the Bain Jury, and the Binnie report the Minister joins them in the gutters baying for blood. Maybe somethings just can't be hidden, things like anger or coarseness, an absolute in being right and and all knowing. I guess Judith found a home and hate-siters a 'loving' idol.