From the Otago Daily Times today:
The retired Canadian judge appointed to assess David Bain's compensation claim, noted the Justice Minister had ''strong views on this case'', released emails reveal.Emails between parties involved in the compensation bid have been released by the office of Judith Collins following an Official Information Act request.
Those emails include an exchange involving retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie and the minister's office.
In a flurry of emails late last year, Justice Binnie rejected a suggestion that the minister had raised the prospect of his report being peer reviewed.
''I do not recall any mention made at my meeting with the minister about `peer review'.''
Later in the same email he wrote, ''I appreciated that the minister has strong views on the case but I suggest that if a modicum of good will is to be shown it would be best shown on all sides''.
This email came after the prime minister announced that Justice Binnie's report would be the subject of a peer review.
Ms Collins' predecessor, Simon Power, commissioned the initial report after Mr Bain claimed compensation in 2010. However, Ms Collins publicly criticised the report, saying it needed to be peer reviewed by New Zealand QC and former High Court judge Robert Fisher.
''It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions,'' she said in December.
Late last month, long-time Bain advocate, Joe Karam confirmed Mr Bain had filed a claim in the High Court at Auckland seeking a judicial review of the actions of the Justice Minister. The claim concerns her actions after she received the report from Justice Binnie, who found that on the balance of probabilities Mr Bain was innocent, and the process behind the report from Robert Fisher QC. Justice Binnie's claim he did not recall any mention of his report being peer reviewed during his meeting with the minister was rejected.
Ms Collins' office replied ''she considered you had gone beyond the terms of your instructions and that she intended to have your advice peer reviewed.
''The minister does not wish to make an issue of this point, it is of more importance to move forward with consideration of Mr Bain's application as swiftly as possible.''
Both Mr Karam and Ms Collins declined to comment to the Otago Daily Times on the released emails, as the matter was before the court.
- hamish.mcneilly@odt.co.nz [2]
Those emails include an exchange involving retired judge of the Supreme Court of Canada Justice Ian Binnie and the minister's office.
In a flurry of emails late last year, Justice Binnie rejected a suggestion that the minister had raised the prospect of his report being peer reviewed.
''I do not recall any mention made at my meeting with the minister about `peer review'.''
Later in the same email he wrote, ''I appreciated that the minister has strong views on the case but I suggest that if a modicum of good will is to be shown it would be best shown on all sides''.
This email came after the prime minister announced that Justice Binnie's report would be the subject of a peer review.
Ms Collins' predecessor, Simon Power, commissioned the initial report after Mr Bain claimed compensation in 2010. However, Ms Collins publicly criticised the report, saying it needed to be peer reviewed by New Zealand QC and former High Court judge Robert Fisher.
''It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions,'' she said in December.
Late last month, long-time Bain advocate, Joe Karam confirmed Mr Bain had filed a claim in the High Court at Auckland seeking a judicial review of the actions of the Justice Minister. The claim concerns her actions after she received the report from Justice Binnie, who found that on the balance of probabilities Mr Bain was innocent, and the process behind the report from Robert Fisher QC. Justice Binnie's claim he did not recall any mention of his report being peer reviewed during his meeting with the minister was rejected.
Ms Collins' office replied ''she considered you had gone beyond the terms of your instructions and that she intended to have your advice peer reviewed.
''The minister does not wish to make an issue of this point, it is of more importance to move forward with consideration of Mr Bain's application as swiftly as possible.''
Both Mr Karam and Ms Collins declined to comment to the Otago Daily Times on the released emails, as the matter was before the court.
- hamish.mcneilly@odt.co.nz [2]
Collins undone, by herself? Looks that way. Fairly safe bet that this email among others released by the Minister was done in the record time of a matter of hours as were the documents sought by The Truth in December 2012 and reportedly released after hours in a total time of only five hours to coincide with a publication time in which David Bain was called a liar. The released 'new' information was 19 years old, yet it was released in record time compared to the normal 21 days estimated for such a process to take. It's evident that the material released to The Truth would appear to the unwitting as confirming reasons for Collins extraordinary actions last year in dealing with David's compensation claim.
The ODT information on the other hand gives an insight as to the real truth of the matter anticipated by the less hysterical. We see Collins and Binnie at odds over whether or not Binnie was told that his report was going to be 'peer' reviewed by a ex Judge junior to Binnie in every respect. Collins appears to brush over this in an effort to move the point of interest else where, yet in fact her treatment of the report is now under Judicial Review and it's clear that Binnie is firm that he was not kept in the loop or given the opportunity to answer any criticisms that the Minister had worked herself into a frenzy over. However, if that weren't bad enough, it seems that Binnie had formed the view that the Minister had strong views on the case and suggested that she show a 'modicum' of good will to all sides. That is the crux of the Judicial Review to some extent, no good will shown to the applicant and a Ministerial view that there were sides - hers and Bains.
Sure, there were two parties involved David and the Crown representing the Ministry of Justice and the Police but surely not 'sides' in the Minister's impartial and fair mind. Not in theory anyway, even for those that could mistake the Minister's bristling antagonism and threats made to David, or her foot stomping as to whose decision it was. In effect the Minister's decision was going be similar to a Judicial decision by a Judge using all the principles of fairness, natural justice and so on yet here it is revealed that the Minister not only had strong views on the Bain case but that she also had lost sight of not only her own role but also any modicums of fairness that ought to have been applied.
I'd suspect there would be even a small chance that a loopy hate-siter would see what the Minister was up to but I suspect few of the public hadn't seen through her contempt and possibly even hate for David Bain even before the release of this document in particular, and no doubt more of the same to come. Was Judith Collins just breath takingly arrogant, and full of contempt for the public and her duty to them? I'd say yes. I'd also say that she did the Country a favour by displaying her arrogance and contempt before her dreams of leading the National party were realised. She appears to have counted her chickens before they hatched and to hold views that others like Binnie and Karam for example can just be trampled over. Well, she's not the King yet and going on this is unlikely ever to become the King - everybody benefits from that. She lives in the wrong era, and believes in absolute power. She would be either King or tyrant, but now people are forewarned to the threats as to their rights and freedoms and many will defend those before this 'pretender' takes her imaginary Throne.
Peer reviewed?
ReplyDeleteA 'proper' peer review does not have a pre-set finding. Fisher's report was a hatchet job, no more and no less. Sure, it's wrapped up in impressive language, although that language is wrong. Just one simple example: Fisher says when pontificating about bayesian approaches:
The usual analogy is the strands in the rope explanation: each strand of evidence gains strength from the other, so that whilst an individual strand may be insufficient to support the load (in this case proof of innocence) the combination of them may be enough. (para 47)
Fisher cites Robertson and Vignaux, acknowledged leaders in the field of bayesian approaches to legal evidence.
But Robertson and Vignaux say:
The appropriate analogy when [evidence] and supporting evidence are considered is not a chain but a rope composed of several strands. The strength of one strand may affect the strength of the whole rope but it cannot affect the strength of another particular strand.
Uh-huh. So there we have the level of understanding of Fisher of the 'proper' approach. That is a major error of principle by Fisher.
Binnie, in assessing the combined evidence uses a standard logical approach known as a fortiori reasoning. There's nothing mystical about it, it simply means that if a point is proved by some strong piece of evidence, subsequent weaker evidence are similarly proved. So for example, if a person is known to be dead, it's logically safe to say they are not breathing. But Fisher apparently took issue with this approach.
And now these emails. Fisher says in his report that it had been revised in light of Binnie's response. I certainly can't see any sign in Fisher's report of Binnie's response having been considered.
In my opinion, Fisher's report is a deliberately obfuscational, and factually untrue attempt designed merely to discredit Binnie's repot and justify another report being commissioned from him (ie Fisher).
I think there's a word for when people use falsehood for achieving an end in which they have a vested financial interest, isn't there?