There had been a building anxiety over the situation that David found himself in as the result of the neutral "Judge Judy' deliberating over his future hand in hand with the two primary groups who sent him to prison for 13 years after the deliberate act of 'an actual Misscarriage of Justice.' While David was the applicant in a bid for compensation for his years in prison, the Minister for all intents treated him as if she were Queen and he was held in the Tower of London while she devised ways to avoid paying him for his mistreatment, aided of course by the perpetrators of that mistreatment the police and The Crown. While the Minister sought a 'peer' review of the Binnie report that David was Innocent on the Balance of Probabilities she kept everybody in the dark apart from both the Crown and police,later she would be seen to have worked with them whilst excluding the applicant.
Contrast that situation with Ian Binnie's way of going about his work, all information he received he copied to the other parties having taken advice from the former Minister of Justice that the Crown were also to be treated as a party to the application from David Bain. He acted with absolute fairness and impartiality, while the Minister who would soon attack his report publicly, after looking to extinguish it's merit privately, acted absolutely without fairness and impartiality. When her 'dark' deeds were finally exposed not only did she attack Binne but she also attacked David Bain in an odd sort of 'motherly' role, expressing that he might not
'like' things in a report that said he was innocent - what would David not like about having been found not innocent on the BOP - to answer that one would have to go to a very dark place indeed - the mind of the Minister of Justice, the person tasked with overseeing one of the most important Government portfolios: the fair administration of Justice.
A Minister who had in previous months looked to have taken a firm grip on the an important portfolio suddenly had become the 'attack dog' for the police and Crown and there was no longer any 'air' of neutrality, only of venom. So for some watchers like myself there seem to be a point raised, the distinction of how long David Bain would stand cap in hand before his 'neutral' tormentor. It appeared even among those with no view of the Bain case, ambivalence to it and even those that thought David guilty that there was disquiet about the spectacle of a Minister predicting long delays in David's applications and speaking to he, and his support team only through the media, that unfairness was at work. What was he to do?
Most people know the point that is reached when a person, having had enough of feeling of being treated badly or unfairly that there dignity is offended or they simply lose their cool and say something as relatively benign as 'stick it up your jumper' or in the case of more seasoned veterans up another more intimate place. That point had long since arrived in my opinion, I'd say around last November or December, perhaps even 2009, but of course no legal remedy, particularly as one as 'complex' as questioning the unbridled use of power against a citizen stripped of their normal rights can happen overnight. I've written else where, and much earlier here on this blog of my resistance to a man or woman damaged by the state, or state powers, in some way to have to go to the Crown head bowed seeking some redress. It seems to me to completely against the kiwi instinct of fairness and is the reason I've always supported the case of Susan Couch against Corrections that was finally settled last year. Why I, like others, still remain disturbed about the Crewe case, the Ellis case, Watson case, because all these people damaged by the state get reduced to fighting an immovable beast while having their hands tied behind their backs. And that immovable beast is the people's own government, just like Judith Collins is the political head of a Justice system that is set in place to ultimately serve and protect those I mention above, but which in fact offers them pity and excuses while fighting them tooth and nail to prevent them receiving redress from the very party that caused immeasurable damage in their lives. Anybody who has had family fight for NZ in wars would harbour some reserve that one of the reasons their family members fought was to see fairness remain strong in our own homelands, fought that that the freedoms of their descendants would be enhanced and improved as a just society became more concerned about rights and the treatment of it's citizens.
Perhaps that is going somewhat too far in ideology - something I will let any readers consider. But in the meantime, as I hope it sinks into other kiwi's minds, we have seen David Bain knocked down by the Minister charged with his fair and just treatment, she has bullied threatened and cautioned him in pubic, spoken about her powers to 'decide' on his future, obviously feeling that her 'powers' were untouchable and able to be used in any way that she decided - because nobody would tell her 'the temporary King or Queen' what to do, or even dare to question her - well on Wednesday David did exactly that, and has arrived where I thought he should have been 4 years ago, not bowing to some 'prerogative cabinet power' but in the Courts were all men and women have the right to go for Justice.
Baroness Hale said in 2011:
ReplyDelete"Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty. A person is only guilty if the state can prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt… if it can be conclusively shown that the state was not entitled to punish a person, it seems to me that he should be entitled to compensation for having been punished. He does not have to prove his innocence at his trial and it seems wrong in principle that he should be required to prove his innocence now."
"Now" being when being compensated for wrongful imprisonment.
That seems logical, fair and 'just'.
There is concern in the UK that people may be compensated when inadmissible evidence 'proves' their factual guilt despite a not guilty verdict. The machinations of Crown Law and the Minister on the Bain case suggests that not only do they agree with these reservations, but that they think that David Bain is guilty - possibly persuaded of that by the inadmissible evidence. However, Ian Binnie had all of that in front of him - all the inadmissible evidence and the rulings about it. Nonetheless he found Bain innocent.
So I'm with the Baroness on this one. If we allow politicians and Crown Law to 'know better' than the 'innocent until proven guilty' for any purpose, including the awarding of compensation, then we may as well do away with the concept altogether.
Judicial review is at the heart of the divide between the judiciary and the executive: the means of keeping the politicians from abusing their power. Those people who are questioning the purpose of this judicial review should think carefully about which of their basic rights they are happy to allow to be sacrificed to the whims of political manoeuvring.
If the Minister of Justice is allowed to manipulate a justice process for political ends, without any outcry from those who should be outraged, where will it go next? The Police already consider themselves above the law: this will merely strengthen that belief. If Crown law and crown prosecutors are asinvested in a belief in Bain's guilt as they clearly are, they are not meeting the basic requirement of their office - a dispassionate and unbiased presentation of truth. Thus the Crown cannot be trusted to act in our best interests. The judiciary need to compel them to manage their beliefs and stick to their jobs.