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.
If Cabinet offer some settlement, some small amount to make it go away, and don't apologise and declare David innocent, then David might refuse it. He was prepared to refuse parole if it meant admitting guilt, after all. This seems to be more about clearing his name than the money for both David and Joe Karam - Karam has no chance of getting back what this has cost him.
ReplyDeleteIf that happened, Collins and Cabinet would be in an even bigger mess. I wonder if they have thought about that?
Collins gave 3 possible alternatives in that interview that she was going to present to Cabinet: 1)make a decision based on the two reports (Binnie's and Fisher's); 2) Get Fisher to do another report; 3) get someone else to do another report.
ReplyDeleteThere is another option which she and the Government have overlooked, which is to appoint a Commission of Inquiry, as the Bain team have asked for and the Government seem to have strenuously resisted. When the Royal Commission was held into the Arthur Allan Thomas case, it was a shameful circus with the police booing and cheering as if they were at a rugby match, Fisher and other council for the police suggesting the judges were biased etc. The Police and the then solicitor-general refused to accept the findings of the Commission.
The manipulation of the findings by Binnie based on the police review provided and on Fisher's report suggests a similar dogmatic refusal to accept that they got it wrong, and a similar arrogant belief that they - the police - should be beyond criticism and beyond normal expectations of professionalism, and that once again they are being supported in this by Fisher. Only this time, Fisher was supposed to be independent.
The political bias shown by Collins: uncritical acceptance of the findings by Police and Fisher, refusal to release the report to the Bain team, failing to give the Bain team the same opportunity to respond to the report as was given to the Police; has led to the unavoidable accusations of opinion-shopping. The use of Fisher to do the hatchet job was unsubtle and obvious. The pre-ordained outcome of Fisher's review was an obvious contradiction of any claimed independence, and shows there was no integrity to the process.
This stinks of corruption, and any claims by Collins of wanting a fair process and wanting to see justice to be done are flatly contradicted by her actions on this.
It is time for those who genuinely care about justice to stand up and be counted, and to refuse to accept this charade.