tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post3006531780468329150..comments2023-08-23T01:25:20.372+12:00Comments on Dread Times: Bain found not guilty - how about something for the rest of the wrongfully imprisonedAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10362796849542826597noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-5574568574931964932009-07-26T12:09:43.944+12:002009-07-26T12:09:43.944+12:00The Peter Ellis case should be looked at again. It...The Peter Ellis case should be looked at again. It always seemed to me to have all the balance and fairness of a Salem witch trial.<br />Phil Goff's ties to this could be dug up as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-52589501329508886782009-07-06T00:52:12.867+12:002009-07-06T00:52:12.867+12:00Someone who is not guilty but though he is wrongfu...Someone who is not guilty but though he is wrongfully imprisoned. like wise in your article. Investigators sometime bring the wrong stories in front of the jury which leads to take the wrong decision.<br /><br /> <a href="http://www.findcriminallawyer.com/firm/" rel="nofollow"> Criminal law firms </a>Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08186852883041680657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-82752367690546359952009-06-29T19:43:17.379+12:002009-06-29T19:43:17.379+12:00Trouble is, we don't know who's wrongfully...Trouble is, we don't know who's wrongfully imprisoned and who is not. The Bain trial created more questions than it answered and there is no guarantee that Robin Bain is the murderer, either, hardly any of the hard evidence even pointed to him, and there are so many unlikely coincidinces. Far from clear cut.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-5666519245888251432009-06-09T09:58:38.547+12:002009-06-09T09:58:38.547+12:00The trouble with the Privy Council is that crimina...The trouble with the Privy Council is that criminal appeals were almost never heard there. You had to seek leave to appeal and it was rarely granted, as opposed to commercial cases which got there by right. <br /><br />This means that in reality we never had a final court of appeal for criminal cases beyond the Court of Appeal, which was in my view not adequate for the role. <br /><br />I was quite interested in a Pacific Supreme Court, and discussed it with Margaret Wilson, who was interested but said that the support from other nations was not there. I still think it could be a way of having a more accessible Supreme Court but incorporating the protections of an international body.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362796849542826597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-52699651402922865302009-06-08T21:17:00.067+12:002009-06-08T21:17:00.067+12:00I think this shows the value of the Privy Council ...I think this shows the value of the Privy Council and the shame it was removed. With most of it's Judges removed from NZ and more impartial to the publicity surrounding a high-profile case you are more likely to get a sound decision.<br /><br />I know NZ Judges are world class and the supreme court has done good work so far, I just regret the loss of that more impartial tribunal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-10243202975364929432009-06-08T13:58:05.556+12:002009-06-08T13:58:05.556+12:00I must take exception to Bosco's first comment...I must take exception to Bosco's first comment. The Privy Council, commonly regarded as a group of fine legal minds, looked at the case and stated that the original conviction was unsafe. They did not say Bain was innocent, but they said there should be a retrial. That makes Bosco's first comment in error in my opinion.adamsmith1922https://www.blogger.com/profile/10876288212991263831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-4649646272777668002009-06-08T11:24:08.637+12:002009-06-08T11:24:08.637+12:00The inquisitorial system certainly results in fair...The inquisitorial system certainly results in fairer verdicts with less bias, but it doesn't mesh too well with the whole right to remain silent facet of our system.<br /><br />In the Bain case the only person who knew exactly what happened and protested his innocense didn't say a word in the entire trial all we had was two highly paid professional story tellers arguing with each other and trying to manipulate 12 average people into believing their side. The actual evidence and facts of the case were never put up to impartial scrutiny by someone unbiased such as a Judge. Imagine if David could have been put on the stand and rather than being attacked by a prosecutor been asked relevant and pertinent questions by a Judge?<br /><br />When you look at the Bain case on its own, taking David and Robins personalitys and portrayed characters out of the question its clear that the evidence beyond reasonable doubt convicts David. However when you introduce the personalies and allow the assasination of characters and introduce emotional manipulation into the equation the actual facts and evidence get lost. Which is the problem in our adversarial system.<br /><br />In this case it counted heavily in Davids favour and allowed a guilty man to walk free, but had he say had the appearence and personality of Scott Watson or a heavily tatooed Maori whom the Jury felt no emotional attachment with the bias would have been to the opposite and he would no doubt have been convicted and the opposite injustice occur.<br /><br />A not proven verdict would have been a much fairer outcome and would lessen the confusion of people like Paul Holmes who seemed to think that this verdict allowed him in his ridiculous opinion peice of call Robin a murderer as a matter of fact. It would also lessen the pressure on jurys.Bosconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-52081244928122529942009-06-07T16:44:20.797+12:002009-06-07T16:44:20.797+12:00Thanks Bosc
Personally I would like to see NZ mov...Thanks Bosc<br /><br />Personally I would like to see NZ move to something closer to an inquisitorial system, where the objective is to get to the truth, rather than prove who is the cleverer lawyer. That's not to say that inquisitorial systems don't have their own problems (Dreyfuss is a good example).<br /><br />I'd be interested in your opinion about have a verdict of 'not proven'. It seems to be a favoured approach among much of the public.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10362796849542826597noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2979924328172105187.post-31624938347674510182009-06-07T03:41:38.649+12:002009-06-07T03:41:38.649+12:00Here's a link to the Thorpe report on David Ba...Here's a link to the Thorpe report on David Bain, it makes for some rather damning reading and its clear that Thorpe didn't consider Bain to be one of the innocents wrongfully imprisoned. Any such appeals office would make no difference in this case, as all the legal minds who have reviewed the evidence have had no doubt as to Davids absolute guilt.<br /><br />It is quite interesting and the factors which make a miscarriage of justice likely, infact you can see them in this case in the reverse in many aspects. Its clear that jurors can be misled and manipulated by both sides, which is one of the major failings of the jury system, perhaps even a panel of judges would be preferable to what is in essence a lottery at the moment depending greatly on the Defendants 'character' and appearence rather than the sole facts and evidence of the matter.<br /><br />I'd suggest anyone getting caught up in the misconception that a not guilty verdict means that David is innocent and Robin guilty read this report<br /><br />http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2004/david-bain/thorp-bain.pdfBoscnoreply@blogger.com