Can the Minister of Justice be trusted.

Just when there are calls from within Government ranks for David Bain to drop his Judicial Review of what he sees as the mishandling of his application for compensation for 13 years of wrongful imprisonment the New Zealand Herald reveals details that pole vault the possibility of claims of 'mishandling' to political persecution.

Most readers are aware that Judith Collins, The Minister of Justice, and aspirant Prime Minister sought a 'peer review' of a report written by Justice Binnie recommending David Bain for compensation, what the public didn't know was that the Minister along with help from her advisors 'reviewed' the report before commissioning a 'Peer Review' by Robert Fisher QC, a man who faced a situation, of his own making, from which he felt the need to resign as a Judge. Not by any standard could it be said that Robert Fisher was qualified or capable to review the findings of an International Juror. Frankly his expertise isn't to that level even on a professional level because few Lawyers would agree to undertake a 'directed' review of another Lawyer in secret. Certainly the 'review' was directed by Collins of that there is no doubt, she didn't hand Robert Fisher QC, a simple directive, she listed at least 34 'concerns' that her hatchet crew had compiled.

I doubt another New Zealand Judge, or ex Judge could be found to review the professional judgement of a Jurist, in secret, and to a 'design' formulated by a politician. That is possibly why Robert Fisher is no longer a Judge, poor judgement, a mercenary approach to personal gain at the expense of others. Also included in the Herald report by David Fisher was the news that Collins distributed 30 copies of the report but none to David Bain or his lawyers. The only conclusion is that the 'report' only went to the hands of those sympathetic to Collin's view and whom there was confidence that they would work toward denying David Bain his lawful rights. A lot of people understand and support open Justice, the right for an accused to know who is accuser is and what they are saying. In the Bain case Collins has become the accuser and the architect of a framework to treat Bain, and his application for compensation, illegally.

Collins when compiling her own report was critical of Justice Binnie, not even bothering to show the impartiality of her office, she  said he had 'descended in the arena.' A description most aptly applied to herself. In recent days the 3 Degrees show has revealed the work of a Waikato business man David Giles who 'discovered' what not other person had been able to do for 19 years, the strong likelihood that Robin Bain's body had being photographed with gunshot residue on his hands consummate with loading and firing of the murder weapon contemporary with the deaths of his family. A day later 3 Degrees were being blasted for failing to have police involved, when in fact they had. They were criticised by Martin Van Beynan from The Press for only giving the 'story' to media friendly toward the Bain team, in other words suggestions were made of bias.

Who is Van Beynan? He is the man who persecuted another wrongfully convicted man Peter Ellis for a crime that was never committed. He is the brother of a senior police officer, a fact he is not known to me, to have revealed when attacking David Bain from the lofty position of claiming to have sat through almost the entire trial, one person of course of scores that sat through the trial.  He is someone who was warned by police to stop harassing a Bain juror and who, despite his vast 'knowledge' of the case never revealed to the public that Robin Bain's dna was found in the barrel of the rifle in such a manner that pointed to a high probability of suicide. It seems clear that Van Beynan was able to benefit from some of those 'loose' copies from the Minister's Office because the day the Minister was finally pressured to make the report public he already had a 'scoop' on it's contents. So exactly what Van Beynan accused 3 Degrees of he had done himself. Some readers will be aware that the 'news paper' The Truth also had an exclusive scoop on the story supplied 'after hours' by the Minister's office after a request under the Official Information Act and in record time. There is only one hand that steered the release of the material and it is the same hand that has denied David Bain natural justice.

As the Minister nears the hearing of Judicial Review in the Auckland High Court it seems that news arrives daily of what has gone on behind the scenes, the Minister has waged a campaign against Bain supported by a 'friendly press,' by a friendly ex Judge and by officials who most likely had no choice and who will hardly be helpful witnesses to any claims by The Minister that she had not in fact persecuted David Bain by plotting against him. I once asked the question as to whether the Minister was a hate-siter, at the time it was a flippant remark although it might not be now.

One of the hate-sites has a copy of fingerprints of David Bain taken in the police station but which they say were taken from the murder weapon, how ever that has happened, thanks to the Herald article, the public now knows that information has been past about secretly, some of it intended to be  leaked to the public misinforming them as to the truth. As always with the Bain case 'mistakes' by the Crown have always impacted negatively on David Bain. Clearly some in authority treat his as an 'enemy' among that number is the 'impartial' Minister of Justice. In this Minister can we trust, doesn't look like it.