I must correct my claim that Scott Watson's

lawyers review and comment on Kirsty McDonald's report before any decision by the Minister as being unprecedented, because the same is happening in the Compensation Case of David Bain. As far back as 2010 The Minister instructed Justice Department Solicitors to work with the Lawyers of David Bain. So in fact the Watson and Bain cases are aligned in that respect, falling within the same basket.
I wonder if we are seeing an unofficial recognition of Compensation for the Falsely Imprisoned, one which a previous Government declined to sanction before the United Nations. Or a type of hybrid solution where the Government recognises that whist they are Law Makers they are not arbiters of the law, particularly in the area of defining guilt. If that is the case a finely balanced point is reached in the progress of the Law within this country, one which was previously wrested away and favoured the establishment and the Government where the falsely imprisoned fell into a twilight and slowly moving world of being denied Justice unless by Government whim.
I've read recently complaints about the traditional articles of law and how the founding principles of the Magna Carta must be progressed into modern times, all of which is true, but however the basic tenet that a man or woman is judged independent of the King (or in our case the Government of the day) remains as solid as first recorded in words a 1,000 years ago.
So perhaps we do see the law progress, where a man or woman always maintains a voice no matter whether from a prison cell or from a position of influence and where once their 'case' could be shifted from table top to table top, having 'tasks' set before it to reach an exercise of the Royal Prerogative that might favour them with freedom.
But the reality of the existence of a path through the quagmire has always been available to any person to challenge a Government decision by Judicial Review, but this has hardly, if ever, been used in cases of the falsely imprisoned or those seeking redress for false imprisonment and I don't understand why. I can recall the use of habeas corpus been considered but from memory or consideration any such attempt would fall at the first hurdle where a conviction existed, as a very narrow view of habeas corpus was conducted whilst the 'opportunity' for Royal Prerogative remained. And of course habeas corpus has no role in offering monetary remedy to the falsely imprisoned.
Prison inmates have challenged Parole Board Hearings, even decisions about what type of books they might have in their cells, if a Court could consider the perhaps frivolous last example given above - then surely is should have occurred to Lawyers nationwide that delayed decisions under the Royal Prerogative, or Minister ordered inquiries or indeed the decisions themselves should, where warranted, have been taken to the Courts for Judicial consideration. And not to forget that lawyers 'talking' outside Court is a modern trend to expediate Justice and place upon the parties the onus to find a way forward.
But the Courts themselves have been too meek in not inquiring further into instances of potential Miscarriages of Justice and have indeed rested behind 'not commenting' on such instances in circumstances where they can claim that they were not 'asked' to rule on such a particular matter even if it might have gravely troubled them. Fortunately, the now lost to us, Privy Council, were never constrained in voicing concerns and seeking out the truth or indeed a balanced picture that a Jury should consider and not the Courts. Whereas our Court of Appeal has played the role of Judgement, prosecution and Jury when it saw fit.
There has been a barren ground between the properly convicted prisoners and those improperly convicted, inquiries for the later invariably take years and when concluded in the falsely convicted prisoner's favour, those prisoners can be asked to climb still higher hurdles to satisfy the whim of the Minister of the day and his Cabinet colleagues. NZ is showing itself to have an abysmal record in false imprisonment and a sloth-like propensity to put things right.
So to end this piece for now, the door has been opened somewhat for David Bain, and likewise for Scott Watson, it is important that door is fully opened, and matters timely brought to Court when required and away from a Minister and his advisers desks, because they are not and never will be the arbiters of Justice, nor whilst they try to hold such a role the public will be denied seeing Justice done, while others dealt harshly by the Justice System, like Vivian Harrison and Rochelle Crewe will remain life-long victims of the State.

One idiot 'wakes' up, which in turn 'wakes' another idiot.

The following from jmhb1 (Jay)

If it was just an open and shut case why has David Bain not applied for compensation yet?

Imagine how much interest he is losing because he hasn't claimed and invested his millions.

Or does he know he has no case?

Quotejmhb51 (1 ) 9:35 am, Sat 4 Dec #30915

'That's right,' thinks Trevor William Fox a Chch trader and pedo-supporter, why hasn't David applied for compensation....and provides 'reasons' for why he wouldn't...

Why would David Bain apply for 'compensation' when he names himself as one of only two suspects in the Bain family massacre (1), and then claims he does not know who did it (2)?

(1) "David Bain said he could be the killer"
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&obj
ectid=10569482

(2) "Bain said that he, Crewe and Arthur Thomas had to “live a life where there is no conclusion to it all and there is no idea of what has happened”." http://www.listener.co.nz/issue/3678/columnists/16436/a_ques
tion_of_timing.html

Quotelucky_trader (1262 ) 12:38 pm, Sat 4 Dec #30924

I wonder what planet these morons are on.

On the 26/3/2010 the venerable and highly experienced man of the Cloth, Michael Reed QC, was reported in the NZ Herald as having told the Herald the previous evening that David's legal team was 'inviting dialogue with the Minister. In the same article the Justice Minister was reported as having had received notification of a claim for 'wrongful conviction and imprisonment.' The next month of the 21/4/10 the Minister was reported to say 'I have instructed officials to work with Mr Bain's lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of Mr Bain's claim.'

But really the kiddie fiddlers should be ignored totally, they have no idea of what they are talking about but feel they have a voice as right thinking dimwits. Trevor William Fox is sated from perving and snooping, downloading illegal sexual material from the internet, drooling over thoughts of children in the way Mike Stockdale has described they might be 'instructed.'

However, and without realising why the idiots are mistakenly correct because it unlikely that David will ever apply for compensation in the 'unique' way allowed by Government 'rules.' I suspect that the venerable QC is too committed to the rule of law and its rich history to bow to Government rules that attempt to supersede centuries old law and due process. That could be the reason for the Minister's words 'I have instructed officials to work with Mr Bain's lawyers to devise a workable process for the assessment of Mr Bain's claim.' Simon Power to this point has shown himself to be a 'nervous' Minister of Justice ready to shed long established practice and tenets of law by virtue of a single case or because of misinformed public opinion, only this week he made contradictory statements regarding executive power and the independence of the Judiciary when 'declining' the daughter of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe request for an independent inquiry into the deaths of her parents. The Law Commission many years ago steered a passage for compulsory compensation but the naughty Minister of about the time 'Sir' Doug Graham instead placed an onus of proof to a civil standard in law that an applicant (or victim of injustice) needed to show/prove their innocence. Of course David has already done that by being acquitted by his peers which followed a ruling by our highest Court that he was, and had been, the subject of an actual Miscarriage of Justice - the point of which I'm sure Mr Reed's letter 'inviting dialogue' was sure to have addressed.

How complex it might be all made, how much more money it will cost when really a comprehensive understanding of Robin's suicide shown by his blood vacuumed deep in the rifle barrel finally completes 16 years of labouring and trying to harness an injustice on a innocent man. He has walked free, now the issues for, and by which, he was falsely imprisoned will be redressed financially and the country it is hoped, or leaders among the country, will clinically reduce each part of the actual MOJ and lay foundations that it doesn't happen again, or if in the event it may, that system does not prevail in covering up, or even holding a view that anything less than honesty finds its way to measurement on the scales of justice.