Breaking: Compensation for Bain for Government’s mishandling of compensation process

139 comments on “Breaking: Compensation for Bain for Government’s mishandling of compensation process ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Rosemary McDonald 1

   2 August 2016 at 11:12 am

   “…will be no compensation for David Bain for his incarceration although it has decided to award compensation for undue delay in finalising the matter in a hope the matter will be finalised by the payment of an ex gratia payment of $925,000. ”

   My brain just turned inside out.

   Clayton’s compo.

   [You are right. I have changed the description because it is clear that the “process difficulties” are the reason for the payment. But yes it is Clayton’s compo – MS]
   • adam 1.1

     2 August 2016 at 11:17 am

     I’m confused. This just seems odd.

     ” Clayton’s compo” I think you just nailed it Rosemary McDonald
     • Keith 1.1.1

       3 August 2016 at 5:45 am

       Clearly the government thinks he did it judging by this decision.
2. Wensleydale 2

   2 August 2016 at 11:17 am

   “Sorry, David. We’re not going to compensate you for your unjust imprisonment. However, we are generously prepared to compensate you for fucking you around for years before deciding we’re not going to compensate you.”

   If I were David Bain, I’d be incandescent with rage right now.
   • Rosemary McDonald 2.1

     2 August 2016 at 11:45 am

     “If I were David Bain, I’d be incandescent with rage right now.”

     The Clayton’s Compo has been accepted. I wonder if the deal has a gagging clause.
   • Puckish Rogue 2.2

     2 August 2016 at 12:41 pm

     “If I were David Bain, I’d be incandescent with rage right now.”

     He should be damn thankful that he’s still not in prison
     • McFlock 2.2.1

       2 August 2016 at 12:42 pm

       +1
     • Kevin 2.2.2

       2 August 2016 at 12:50 pm

       Why?

       He should never have been there in the first place.

       He was wrongly convicted and then found not guilty in a second trial.

       He is entitled to compensation as was Teina Pora, David Dougherty and Alan Thomas, whether you like it or not.
       • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1

         2 August 2016 at 12:54 pm

         He was correctly found guilty and then incorrectly found not guilty and the difference between Teina Pora, David Dougherty and Alan Thomas and David Bain is that they were not guilty

         If David Bain wanted compensation then he should have gone on the dock so he could have been questioned
         • Leftie 2.2.2.1.1

           2 August 2016 at 2:12 pm

           But wasn’t Bain acquitted in his retrial?
           • Puckish Rogue 2.2.2.1.1.1

             2 August 2016 at 3:15 pm

             As I understand it (and no doubt someone will probably correct me) theres a higher threshold for compensation, that its not just a case of found not guilty = money
             • McFlock …

               2 August 2016 at 3:22 pm

               weizguy went into it below.

               The cabinet guideline is whether, on the balance of probabilities, he actually did it (therefore the injustice is the irregularities that led to the trial being overturned and redone) or did not do it (so the injustice was that a probably innocent man was sent to gaol).
               • dukeofurl …

                 2 August 2016 at 3:28 pm

                 The Police evidence to ‘prove his innocence’ was not kept for his retrial or subsequent enquiries

                 Botched investigation meant he could have been cleared at his first trial
                 “In further cross-examination by Reed, the former detective agreed his officers had failed to take gunshot residue tests of either Robin’s or David’s hands and arms in the time period required. ”

                 “He accepted that although the police manual talked about wrapping bodies in plastic and ensuring hands and feet were wrapped as well, that was not done in Robin Bain’s case.”

                 “Doyle agreed that if skin around the head wounds of Robin Bain had been properly preserved, a major dispute in the current trial could have been avoided. Carpet on which bloody footprints were found should also have been cut out but was not.”

                 “The samples were scrapings from underneath Robin Bain’s fingernails, a smear of blood on Robin Bain’s left hand and skin samples from Robin Bain’s hands. They were destroyed on January 26, 1996.”
                 http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/2249985/Police-investigation-challenged

                 The NBR analysis why police incompetance meant it was impossible for Bain to prove his innocence
                 http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/twelve-reasons-worry-about-bain-case-ns-134942
                 eg
                 Photographs taken of the crime scene were a “shambles”. The date and time function on the camera was not switched on.
                 The DNA sample for the “blood fingerprint” analysis was found to be an “unspeakable mess”.
                 . Police destroyed crucial evidence ahead of the Bain appeal.
                 • McFlock …

                   2 August 2016 at 3:35 pm

                   or prove his guilt.
       • smilin 2.2.2.2

         3 August 2016 at 4:08 pm

         Seems a pedantic difference between not guilty and innocent when it comes to the govt
         If your innocent till proven guilty then what do you call not guilty if it is not innocent
         Therefore his imprisonment was the fault of HMG so he should be compensated and the govt accept the highest court ruling ie privy council or is that not good enough then what is ?a royal pardon ?
         I suppose they will argue against that on the grounds of what, the Queens reps arent competent, or just a plain old fuck you DB we know yo did it signed off by one of the excops in parliament really good eh
     • billmurray 2.2.3

       2 August 2016 at 1:57 pm

       Puckish Rogue, I agree with you, lets just hope that with this payment he and his handler ‘Mr Greed’ disappear from our lives.
       • Puckish Rogue 2.2.3.1

         2 August 2016 at 2:03 pm

         Do you think they will though?
         • billmurray 2.2.3.1.1

           2 August 2016 at 4:46 pm

           Puckish Rogue, Joe Karam may want to keep going but Bain who did not go into the dock to get cross examined, will be very grateful indeed for this perk pay-out will call time.
           I wish that they both become immigrants FROM our country.
           • red-blooded 2.2.3.1.1.1

             2 August 2016 at 10:27 pm

             I think you mean “emigrants”, Bill. (“I”=in, “E”=exit)

             Leave the poor bloke alone, eh?
     • D'Esterre 2.2.4

       2 August 2016 at 9:39 pm

       Puckish Rogue: ” He should be damn thankful that he’s still not in prison.”

       My sentiments exactly.
     • meconism 2.2.5

       3 August 2016 at 12:48 am

       Conviction quashed by the Privy Council and acquitted at re trial, if that doesn’t satisfy you, might i suggest you go and [Deleted. Don’t advocate violence, please. TRP]. I read a lot of your stupidity on this site pr but you really are an ignorant selfish and profoundly stupid prick. I wouldn’t cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire.
   • Patricia Duff 2.3

     2 August 2016 at 2:08 pm

     Indeed I would create hell looking back at some of the payouts it is peanuts,
   • mosa 2.4

     3 August 2016 at 12:22 am

     After reading Joe Karams book i am even more convinced he did the crime.
     His version has never added up and he has NOT BEEN FOUND INNOCENT OF THE CRIME after all the money spent and court trials they have not found him innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.
     With our money i suppose he can just afford to buy a house in Auckland.
     Outrageous.
     • aerobubble 2.4.1

       3 August 2016 at 1:11 pm

       The question of guilt is irrelevant until proceediral matters are dealt with. Victims of crime must expect justice is available. You do remember the victims dont you. The parasite class likes to make out how defintive everything is, but they routine dont care about actual facts. Ts a fact that a person has the right to a fair trial, cause the victims want the right person to be found guilty, also they dont want a wrong added, that a innocent is found guilty. This is why we’d rather guilt people go free than innocent be locked away. THis is why every freedom patriot is incensed that Bain has failed to be compensated by the govt. Its up to a free state to prove that its capable of proving guilt as well as doing so. A state cannot allow its agents to fumble a guilt verdit, then say their bad, they can provide the evidence for a sufficient balance of probabilities assessment. The Law society should strike off the author of the report who contends the Police handling of evidence is sufficient, since his report isnt a legal document, or that the govt exjudicial declaration of balance probs is a judgment worth pee, using legal criteria to pass political decision off as legal is unconsciousable. In fact Bain should be now sued for falsly agreeing to a unconsciousable contract, that can finallt investigate the fairness to all the courts proceedings police handling and politucal spin. Because i think this whole affair, pushing the guilt of a person into a public arena is an attack on the justice system.

       What is a persin to do when they walking into their home, their family dying, their relative, son, father, brother, are insane, and left them in the frame? Nobody has a clue now. And should you dare fight this, your givt will give you a million dollars eventually. Oh please what does thst say about our courts? When they fail to admit error, when pushed after decades to, they still are miserily and unhumilated by being caught failing.
     • Brigid 2.4.2

       3 August 2016 at 3:18 pm

       But have you read Justice Binney’s report? I think you should. As should all the people who doubt David Bain’s innocence.
3. Siobhan 3

   2 August 2016 at 11:22 am

   I was waiting for a piece on this ..OUTRAGEOUS decision….

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/309942/care-worker-loses-at-court-of-appeal

   “The court said Ms Lowe’s relief work for full-time carers for disabled people did not fit the definition of being an employee.”
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     2 August 2016 at 11:39 am

     This should be moved to Open Mike.
     • Siobhan 3.1.1

       2 August 2016 at 12:30 pm

       The result of having too many open tabs..can someone move it for me??
   • Rosemary McDonald 3.2

     2 August 2016 at 11:40 am

     Siobahn…you are right…but this is not unexpected. I read the entire decision before my coffee this morning and in actual fact, the way the Miserly of Health set up Carer Support, it was never going to be ever a “fit for purpose” scheme.

     I am a fulltime unpaid care of my partner, with an allocation of 100 of Carer Support Subsidy that I am unable to use….legally.

     ps. I suspect this exchange may be moved to Open Mike.
     • weka 3.2.1

       2 August 2016 at 5:40 pm

       Rosemary, is the $3/hr paid by the MoH direct to the care worker? Or does it go through the family? They called it relief work in the RNZ article but are they talking about respite care?
       • Rosemary McDonald 3.2.1.1

         2 August 2016 at 6:31 pm

         http://www.health.govt.nz/your-health/services-and-support/disability-services/types-disability-support/respite-and-carer-support/carer-support

         The ‘full time unpaid carer’ (that’s me!) is allocated so many ‘days’ funded at $76 per day.

         There is a form to be filled out….can be accessed through the page I linked to.

         I can pay the ‘support carer’ directly….(with what pray? The dollars shaken from the tree down the back?) get them to fill out their bit of the form and I can claim back the amount.

         or…and preferably…I can fill out the form saying ‘x’ gave me so many days of support please pay them the $76 per day.

         It used to be possible (and common) for folk to send in a form “saying ‘x’ did ‘y’ number of days during this date and that date” and they would pay the support carer.

         This was by far the best method for those of us caring for someone with very high and complex care needs when most of the time we had to take ‘support’ (from acceptable people) at short notice and at irregular times. Very difficult to organise support carers with the level of expertise that means the unpaid fulltime carer can just walk off and leave them to it. There has to be enough flexibility in the system….there never was, and in early 2010 the Misery changed the form and now we had to put down the number of hours the person worked ….start and finish times…ridiculous when the funding per day is so low.

         All up Weka….Carer Support was a token ‘shut them up’ gesture from the Ministry.

         Having said that….our family has provided support care for disabled children. The kids would come and stay (our home is accessible) and not only get the care they needed, but they would get to stay with a family where one of the parents had a disability and was themselves a hands on carer. We did this for $76 for 24 hour period. Happy to as these kids needed good respite care and their parents needed this kind of support.

         While the Lowe case was wending, the Miserly began a trial of Enabling Good Lives in the Western BOP and Waikato. One aspect was enabling people to use their Enhanced Inidividualised Funding to pay for Carer Support at a much higher hourly rate. I have no experience of this scheme…but there is a rather larger evaluation of the EGL program…haha..not an entirely positive read as the Miserly seemingly cannot help but be the ones in control…even when they say…”you, the disabled person is in charge!”

         I am not surprised by this decision…CSS was always a subsidy and for years folk got along and used it the best way they could, and the low hourly rate was subsidised by sheer good will.

         Something that the Misery of Health has a deficit of.
   • te reo putake 3.3

     2 August 2016 at 11:45 am

     I’m not sure if this is the right post for discussing that particular case, Siobhan. It’s a disappointing outcome, certainly. But from reading the link, the question seems to be about the nature of the work Ms Lowe was doing and whether it was as a contractor, as a homeworker or as an employee. The DHB appears to have successfully argued that she wasn’t an employee. I’m not sure what the implications are for others doing similar work, but no doubt her union will be clarifying that matter in short time.
   • aerobubble 3.4

     3 August 2016 at 1:14 pm

     You noticed how they dumped these stories all together…
4. Infused 4

   2 August 2016 at 11:31 am

   He was never found innocent. We all know he did it.
   • Wensleydale 4.1

     2 August 2016 at 11:35 am

     Stop listening to the voices in your head, Infused. It’s not healthy.
   • mickysavage 4.2

     2 August 2016 at 11:41 am

     In that case the payment is an acknowledgment by the Government that it stuffed up the compensation process. Big time.
     • Leftie 4.2.1

       2 August 2016 at 1:52 pm

       And isn’t that why the National government purposely stuffed up the compensation process so it wouldnt have to pay out proper restitution?
       • Chris 4.2.1.1

         2 August 2016 at 2:40 pm

         The original claim was made when we had a Labour government which put every ounce of energy it had into defending that claim. Labour did the same thing in the sleepover case. Absolutely sickening behaviour from a party that calls itself progressive. Workers’ rights and human rights be damned.
         • Leftie 4.2.1.1.1

           2 August 2016 at 2:47 pm

           “Workers’ rights and human rights be damned.”

           That is so very true of National Chris.
           • Chris 4.2.1.1.1.1

             2 August 2016 at 2:49 pm

             I was referring to what happened when we had a Labour government.
             • Leftie …

               2 August 2016 at 2:59 pm

               David Bain was acquitted in 2009 Chris, wasn’t the claim for compensation made after that?
             • Chris …

               2 August 2016 at 3:19 pm

               I’ve gotten tangled up – have been commenting on the discussion about the carers decision above.
               • dukeofurl …

                 2 August 2016 at 3:57 pm

                 You are scrambled over the Carers case as well. had nothing to do with when labour government was in office. Chain of cases started here.

                 “In 2013 Ms Lowe issued proceedings in the Employment Relations Authority
                 seeking a determination that she was engaged as a homeworker>>”
                 • Leftie …

                   2 August 2016 at 4:08 pm

                   +1 Dukeofurl.
                 • Chris …

                   2 August 2016 at 4:14 pm

                   The latest claim wouldn’t have been possible without the Atkinson case – a proceeding that went on for years because a Labour government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars defending a human rights claim they ought to have embraced.
               • Leftie …

                 2 August 2016 at 4:00 pm

                 Yeah, right, but the Nats still don’t do wrong aye Chris? its always going to be Labour’s fault regardless.
                 • Chris …

                   2 August 2016 at 4:06 pm

                   If the current Labour party are the fresh new progressives you say they are why are you so defensive against negative comments about the previous Labour government?
                   • dukeofurl …

                     2 August 2016 at 4:11 pm

                     Correcting mistakes is a backward move ? Just keep your baseless slurs to your self as this shows you havent a clue.
                   • Leftie …

                     2 August 2016 at 4:11 pm

                     Because it is totally irrelevant under the topic being discussed Chris, again you are just trying to have a go for the sake of it. Have a cup of tea and take your pointless argument elsewhere.
                   • Chris …

                     2 August 2016 at 4:18 pm

                     What mistakes have Labour corrected?
                   • Leftie …

                     2 August 2016 at 4:36 pm

                     You’re being deliberately obtuse Chris, because you want to have a fight. Dukeofurl was making reference to your mistakes, and you know it.
                   • Chris …

                     2 August 2016 at 4:52 pm

                     dukeofurl was referring to Labour’s mistakes, you pathetic little Labour toadie.
                   • Leftie …

                     2 August 2016 at 5:28 pm

                     You’re sad and pathetic. Get a life Chris, you’ll feel better.
     • Leftie 4.2.2

       2 August 2016 at 2:10 pm

       Collins got her way in the end, didn’t she?
       • Psycho Milt 4.2.2.1

         2 August 2016 at 3:07 pm

         For once I feel happy that Collins got her way. If only she’d got her way to the extent that Bain got told to whistle for his money.
         • Ross 4.2.2.1.1

           2 August 2016 at 6:23 pm

           Me too.

           Remember David Bain said, after his conviction was quashed:

           “I kept coming back to my core belief – I wasn’t there.”

           Hmmm it’s merely a belief that he’s innocent? In the same interview he said that whether anyone thought he was guilty or innocent, he’s served 13 years in prison and should be able to get on with his life. That’s another weird comment.

           http://www.tv3.co.nz/Mar-4—David-Bain—The-Interview/tabid/2059/articleID/76018/Default.aspx
           • red-blooded 4.2.2.1.1.1

             2 August 2016 at 6:57 pm

             I don’t find that comment at all weird. He knows there are some people who will never be convinced. Personally, I think he’s innocent. Even if he wasn’t, though, I would take the view that he was clearly a very traumatised and damaged young man if he did commit the murders and that he had served his time. Let’s remember that the non-parole period for murder used to be 10 years. Thirteen years is a damn long time for anyone, let alone someone who’s spent his 20s and early 30s in prison. There’s no way to really compensate someone for that, if the original conviction was wrong. Even if it wasn’t, I’d say 13 years is enough.
             • Ross …

               2 August 2016 at 9:44 pm

               Thirteen years for the cold, calculating murder of five people, including three of his siblings? Because, if he’s guilty, that’s exactly what he did and, not forgetting, tried to blame his father by writing a fake note. You might think 13 years in prison is a damn long time but it equates to less than three years for each life taken. In other countries, like the UK, he’d likely be spending the rest of his life in prison.

               There’s plenty of evidence to suggest he’s guilty. I do find it interesting that he told his original trial lawyer that he was wearing his mother’s glasses on the night of the murders but recanted when he realised the implication of that admission.
               • red-blooded …

                 2 August 2016 at 10:42 pm

                 When it comes right down to it, neither you nor I can possibly know if he committed the murders. My instinct, having looked into things reasonably thoroughly some years ago, is no. Yours is yes. Either way, the police botched the investigation and made it impossible to really resolve the matter. (See later comments about issue like carpets and gunpowder residue tests.) However, even if he did kill his family (which I really doubt), it would be ridiculous to talk about these murders as “cold-blooded”. These were clearly the acts of an unbalanced mind (whoever that mind belonged to). What did Bain have to gain from these killings? “Cold-blooded” implies an external motivation, and a careful plan.

                 As for things like which glasses he was wearing, I hope you never have to experience such horror and panic. Maybe you’d be super-settled and calm. I sure as hell wouldn’t and – shit – I might even make mistakes or change my story as different memories pushed their way into the clutter of my thoughts and feelings. I might do things that seemed, to a third person, looking back and looking to create their own narrative, to be illogical or inconsistent. You? You’d clearly be calm and orderly and fine and dandy. Good on you.
                 • Ross …

                   2 August 2016 at 11:32 pm

                   How closely have you looked at the evidence? It might be worth looking at it again.

                   I hope you never have to experience such horror and panic.

                   But how do you know David panicked? He didn’t call police for at least 20 minutes, all the while the killer might have been inside the house. Why didn’t David quickly leave the house, fearing that he might be the next to be shot? He said he went from room to room – hearing his sister gurgle and watching blood streaming down his mother’s face, but not calling police – yet he didn’t say he was scared of being killed. Why not?

                   http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-david-bains-innocence-appeal
                   • red-blooded …

                     3 August 2016 at 7:24 am

                     “Why didn’t he…?”

                     Again, horror and panic. Shock and grief. People process these experiences differently and they don’t necessarily do things tidily and logically.
             • Chris …

               2 August 2016 at 11:09 pm

               Some of the evidence supports a conclusion that Robin killed his wife and three kids then David came home, saw what had happened then shot Robin. If that were the case then provocation would’ve been available so 13 years is ample.
           • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.2.2.1.1.2

             2 August 2016 at 9:01 pm

             He has often used language that is inconsistent with innocence – including the 111 call.
     • Tanz 4.2.3

       3 August 2016 at 12:21 am

       Have you not looked at all the physical evidence, MS? All of it leads to DB, there is not one shred of hard evidence against Robin Bain. It’s an outrage that DB gets anything, and its extortion money. The only good thing, the final report finally acquits the voiceless Robin Bain and I am sure those greedy lawyers will suck up much of the dosh. What a travesty! The first jury was the sensible jury, who did not party with the accused, and were not blindsided by a media circus.
   • weizguy 4.3

     2 August 2016 at 12:58 pm

     We don’t have a system that finds innocence. Our systems retains the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Bain’s conviction was overturned. Perhaps you should think about how you would respond to being subjected to the same criteria.

     This bizarre obsession with finding people innocent demonstrates a disturbing misunderstanding of our criminal justice system. Please retire that poor abused canard.
     • GregJ 4.3.1

       2 August 2016 at 5:12 pm

       Thanks for the most sensible comment on this whole post.

       Tying compensation for wrongful imprisonment to a standard that is not found in our judicial system is inequitable and an injustice. The state is entrusted with tremendous power to exercise justice on our behalf and it should be held to exacting standards of proof in obtaining a conviction. If someone is wrongly convicted or the conviction is unsafe (as found by the Privy Council), imprisoned, re-tried and found Not Guilty then compensation should be paid – both to make amends to the person concerned and to remind the state authorities (police, prosecution service and courts) of the high standards that they are held to in exercising justice.
     • Macro 4.3.2

       2 August 2016 at 7:20 pm

       ^^^^ This.
   • Michelle 4.4

     3 August 2016 at 8:39 am

     Do we really know he did it. We should never reintroduce the death penalty in our country our police and justice system is too tardy. How many more victims are sitting in our prisons that shouldn’t be
   • aerobubble 4.5

     3 August 2016 at 1:19 pm

     Govt gives murderer million dollars, says its Police, courts, appeals, did a fine job keeping a murderer getting anything. Since we know Bain will get nothing as the money is for the lawyers fees etc. Timeliness is essential for justice, Bain never stood a chance to prove innocence, we can only hope he was guilty.
5. Lanthanide 5

   2 August 2016 at 11:38 am

   Have a read of this, from a journalist who attended the retrial: http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict

   The weight of circumstantial evidence against David is pretty heavy.
   • Puckish Rogue 5.1

     2 August 2016 at 12:45 pm

     Exactly

     David Bain got away with murder and pocketed 900 grand (and whatever profits from the books) for his trouble
     • Kevin 5.1.1

       2 August 2016 at 12:58 pm

       “David Bain got away with murder”

       Not unless his feet shrunk before the killings and then grew after.
       • Puckish Rogue 5.1.1.1

         2 August 2016 at 1:27 pm

         https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/conclusion-reached-bain-compensation-case

         “Mr Callinan’s report found that Mr Bain has not established his innocence on the balance of probabilities. As such, no statement of innocence or compensation payment will be made to Mr Bain.
         • Leftie 5.1.1.1.1

           2 August 2016 at 3:07 pm

           That’s not what Canadian judge Ian Binnie reported.

           Ian Binnie was the first judge that the National government had hired to make a report. National didn’t like his findings, so they hired someone else who would say what they wanted. National is always doing that.

           Its like what john key says, if you don’t like what one scientist, academic, lawyer says, find another who will give you a counter view.

           <a href="http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/john-keys-unhappy-week-at-the-bbc/
           • Psycho Milt 5.1.1.1.1.1

             2 August 2016 at 3:46 pm

             In this case, they were justified in rejecting the report. The guy had been handed a brief that said “applicant must make a case for being innocent on balance of probabilities” and came back with a report that put the burden of proof on the Crown. That’s the equivalent of a surgeon cutting off the wrong limb – it’s no surprise Collins was furious with him.
         • Kevin 5.1.1.1.2

           2 August 2016 at 3:48 pm

           Pretty hard to establish your innocence when the police made such a pigs arse of the gathering and preserving evidence.
           • GregJ 5.1.1.1.2.1

             2 August 2016 at 5:21 pm

             Not surprising for the police. Their recordkeeping has and continues to be a shambles. It’s not just carelessness (although that plays a part) – it’s the arrogance of an organisation that thinks it doesn’t have to play by the rules everyone else does.
   • Rosemary McDonald 5.2

     2 August 2016 at 1:32 pm

     What I never understood was why David was found ‘guilty’, as opposed to ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. Killing your entire family like that. Not the action of a sane person, surely?

     I used to think the balance of probabilities was against David being innocent…the evidence collected and compiled by the police prosecution team was sooo damning.

     Then I personally experienced police incompetence/corruption, and my world view changed entirely.

     One way of looking at it (reading the article you linked to) that there is a suspicious amount of evidence linking the murders to David.

     Almost as if they had made up their minds who had done it.
     • Lanthanide 5.2.1

       2 August 2016 at 1:45 pm

       Yeah, insanity certainly comes to mind when reading that article. I never kept up with the minutia of the case so can’t really offer any opinion on that count.
     • Psycho Milt 5.2.2

       2 August 2016 at 3:50 pm

       What I never understood was why David was found ‘guilty’, as opposed to ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.

       Well, he never claimed insanity and no psychologists considered him insane, so what’s difficult to understand about it? Clayton Weatherston wasn’t found “not guilty by reason of insanity” either.

       …there is a suspicious amount of evidence linking the murders to David.

       Almost as if they had made up their minds who had done it.

       Or, almost as if he had done it.
     • ankerawshark 5.2.3

       3 August 2016 at 2:50 pm

       To be found not guilty by reason of insanity a person needs to be actively psychotic, e.g believing that in David’s case his family were impostors out to cause grave harm to him and therefore laboring under this delusion shot them in self defence. Otherwise no matter how heinous the crime, people are responsible for their actions.

       My tuppence worth on David Bain. There is only one person who really knows what happened and that’s David. I am not an expert in the case, but have read quite a bit about it. I believe it is correct in that he is unable to prove his innocence unlike Pora or David Duoarty (mis-spell) sorry.

       There is quite a bit of compelling evidence David Bain could have done it.

       This is the first occasion I actually think the Nats have done the right thing (shock horror, but true). This case needs to be closed now.
6. Ralf Crown 6

   2 August 2016 at 11:59 am

   “Not innocent beyond reasonable doubt” It is the first time ever I heard that. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is the strongest possible test on a possible guilty verdict. It has never been used in terms of innocent. Applying that test just about everyone accused of anything will be guilty by default. Everyone who passes the checkout in a supermarket is “Not innocent beyond reasonable doubt” in other words, guilty of shoplifting. Yet another blow for the credibility and trust of the New Zealand justice system and the trust in these clown called kiwis. The Chinese are fed up with the kangaroo system of New Zealand and want to get rid of the howlers from Downunder that can no longer be trusted.
   • Lanthanide 6.1

     2 August 2016 at 12:12 pm

     “Not innocent beyond reasonable doubt” It is the first time ever I heard that. “Beyond reasonable doubt” is the strongest possible test on a possible guilty verdict. It has never been used in terms of innocent. Applying that test just about everyone accused of anything will be guilty by default.

     Best you learn the context of what is being spoken of then, eh?

     To be found guilty of a crime and CONVICTED, you must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

     To get COMPENSATION from the government for imprisonment, you must be found innocent beyond reasonable doubt for the crime you were convicted of.

     So you can avoid conviction by having “reasonable doubt”. But if there is “reasonable doubt”, you won’t get compensation from the government.

     Two separate (but related) judgements. Two different levels of certainty that must be met.

     This government is applying existing legislation.
     • weizguy 6.1.1

       2 August 2016 at 1:05 pm

       Just to clarify – the compensation test is a Cabinet guideline. It’s not legislation.
       Secondly, the compensation test is on the “balance of probabilities” – the civil standard, which is harder for the accused.

       For the criminal offence, the crown needed to prove that Bain was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. For compensation, the reviewer needed to establish whether he was guilty “on the balance of probablities” i.e whether it was more likely that he was guilty.

       The first report found that he (on balance) didn’t commit the murders. The second found that he (on balance) did.
       • Lanthanide 6.1.1.1

         2 August 2016 at 1:48 pm

         Thanks.
       • Chris 6.1.1.2

         2 August 2016 at 3:33 pm

         Isn’t the test for compensation innocent on the balance of probabilities?
       • The Chairman 6.1.1.3

         3 August 2016 at 2:08 pm

         Why does the compensation test work off the balance of probabilities? Surely its destine to result in inconsistencies in regard to court rulings based on the presumption of innocence?
   • Sacha 6.2

     2 August 2016 at 1:59 pm

     Ralf, are we to take it that you are an official representative of ‘the Chinese’ whose views you seem so intimately acquainted with in nearly every recent comment you’ve made?
   • Psycho Milt 6.3

     2 August 2016 at 3:04 pm

     The Chinese are fed up with the kangaroo system of New Zealand…

     Bain’s Chinese now? When did that happen? And what the hell is “the kangaroo system of New Zealand?”
     • dukeofurl 6.3.1

       2 August 2016 at 3:50 pm

       A Beijing puppet blogger ?
7. Dave 7

   2 August 2016 at 12:20 pm

   This government has to go
   • Michelle 7.1

     2 August 2016 at 1:47 pm

     The governments got to go and the judicial system needs a good clean up
     • Leftie 7.1.1

       2 August 2016 at 2:02 pm

       +1 Michelle, and it’s not just the judicial system that requires cleaning and fumigation.
   • Leftie 7.2

     2 August 2016 at 1:58 pm

     +1 Dave
8. Leftie 8

   2 August 2016 at 2:09 pm

   Collins, judge feud over Bain

   ANDREA VANCE
   Last updated 05:00 13/12/2012

   The gloves are off in a bitter spat between Justice Minister Judith Collins and retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie over the David Bain compensation report.

   In a verbal sparring match one observer described as “unprecedented”, the pair publicly traded blows yesterday over what was in Mr Binnie’s September report on the compensation bid.

   He had concluded Mr Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities of the murder of his parents, two sisters and brother in Dunedin in 1994.

   Ms Collins says Mr Binnie made “significant errors”, misinterpreted evidence and went “well beyond” his terms of reference. She has asked for his report to be peer-reviewed by New Zealand lawyer Robert Fisher, which she is due to receive today.

   She said Mr Binnie made assertions about witnesses in the report – and did not give them a chance to respond.

   “When it comes to Justice Binnie, I’m not at all impugning his integrity,” she insisted.

   Mr Binnie bit back at the criticism. In a press release issued from Switzerland yesterday morning, he accused Ms Collins of playing politics with the report.

   The respected international judge – who was paid about $400,000 by the Government for his work – said Mr Bain was entitled to see his findings.

   “It is a curious feature of this case that all of the ‘external’ judges who have looked at the record of the case have rejected the arguments of the solicitor-general and the Crown Law Office regarding David Bain’s guilt,” Mr Binnie said. In a stinging swipe at Ms Collins, he said it was improper for a client to publicly attack a lawyer’s advice.

   “I would expect that the minister, as a former Auckland tax lawyer, would be well aware of this principle.”

   Ms Collins used question time in Parliament to continue her critique of his work. She said he made errors about fingerprint evidence and was wrong to rely on elements of Mr Bain’s defence as fact.

   Within hours, Mr Binnie took to the airwaves to say “all I ask is that she stop talking about it”.

   “I was extremely surprised to hear her comments given that she insisted my report was confidential,” he told Radio New Zealand. “It’s catch-22.

   “She can apparently declare open season on the report and yet claim that I can’t release the report.”

   He said she waived privilege with her actions and it was unfair not to disclose his findings to Mr Bain when she had shown the report to Crown lawyers.

   But Mr Binnie said he would not release it. “I think she is wrong in doing what she has done . . . I’m not about to multiply the wrong.”

   Ms Collins also turned her wrath on Michael Reed, QC, Mr Bain’s lawyer, who said the minister just did not like what the report concluded.

   “Mr Reed is quite wrong. Mr Reed is, in fact, impugning my honesty, integrity.”

   He “should know better”, she said.

   The minister was likely to release both reports by the end of the week.

   “There is no point having a report with significant errors through it . . . that’s not going to help David Bain.”

   Mr Bain is seeking compensation for the almost 13 years he spent in jail after being convicted in May 1995. He was acquitted at a retrial in 2009 and could get about $2 million but the Government is not obliged to pay compensation.

   Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis said the David Bain case had captured the public attention – and any errors were bound to be seized on.

   “New Zealand seems to be a country of amateur Bain-ologists . . . the evidence is such a long and complicated trail spread over two trials, I wonder if it’s possible to write a report that gets everything spot-on.”

   Politicians had chosen to make the decision on compensation “a political call”.

   “That means the usual rules of respect between the judicial and the legal branch don’t really apply here so strongly,” Prof Geddis said.

   – The Dominion Post

   <a href="http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8072376/Collins-judge-feud-over-Bain
   • Jenny Kirk 8.1

     2 August 2016 at 4:11 pm

     Does anyone know if Binnie’s report was ever released publicly ?
     • Leftie 8.1.1

       2 August 2016 at 4:24 pm

       Hello Jenny Kirk,

       Report recommending Bain compensation is ‘flawed’

       By Audrey Young, APNZ staff

       7:54 PM Thursday Dec 13, 2012

       “Labour’s justice spokesman Charles Chauvel said the release of the reports today revealed the extent of Ms Collins “behind-the-scenes interference to try and undermine Justice Binnie’s report on the David Bain Case”.

       “Judith Collins has worked relentlessly since 26 September to pick holes in Justice Binnie’s reasoning. She has spent $100,000 of taxpayers’ funds on a nit-picking review of Justice Binnie’s report, which itself cost taxpayers over $400,000.

       “At the same time she was instructing Robert Fisher QC to critique Justice Binnie’s work on a far wider basis of criticism than she ever made clear to him.”

       Mr Chauvel said that in the documents released today, the criticisms of Justice Binnie’s work had been greatly overstated”

       <a href="http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853771

       There is a link in PDF file format of Binnie’s report in the article.
       • Jenny Kirk 8.1.1.1

         2 August 2016 at 4:38 pm

         Thanks, Leftie.
       • Chuck 8.1.1.2

         2 August 2016 at 5:54 pm

         Binnie had one too many bourbons writing his report…

         “Mr Chauvel said that in the documents released today, the criticisms of Justice Binnie’s work had been greatly overstated”

         Taking Chauvel’s opposition tainted glasses off = “Binnie’s work was shit”.
     • Ross 8.1.2

       2 August 2016 at 9:52 pm

       Yes, his report was released very quickly and was found by various experts to be flawed.
   • xanthe 8.2

     3 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

     “Ms Collins says Mr Binnie made “significant errors”, misinterpreted evidence and went “well beyond” his terms of reference. She has asked for his report to be peer-reviewed by New Zealand lawyer Robert Fisher, which she is due to receive today”

     exactly the way they dealt with the eribus report (justice mahon) , an you know there are plenty here still arguing pilot error there.

     Spin Spin and more spin . What actually needs to happen is deal with the disfunctional police prosicutions department that is creating a trail of destruction as well as that they might sack a few judges for good measure (but I am sure they would sack the wrong ones so maby not)
9. Patricia Duff 9

   2 August 2016 at 2:14 pm

   Don’t blame the Government for this problem , blame the Minister, how many years has David been released, great laugh when we see the payout for Teina Pora I could make a few remarks but of dear less said the better ???
10. Psycho Milt 10

    2 August 2016 at 2:58 pm

    Judith Collins has a lot to answer for.

    I’m going to need a shower after writing this, but we owe Judith Collins a debt of gratitude for sticking to her guns and rejecting the initial review. If she hadn’t, we’d have ended up handing Bain a lot more than $950,000 of our cash. I’d prefer it if we gave him nothing, but this is probably as good as we’re going to get.
    • Wensleydale 10.1

      2 August 2016 at 5:32 pm

      A shower? You’re going to need an exorcism, mate.
11. Xanthe 11

    2 August 2016 at 7:16 pm

    You all are missing the point!
    The question is who then did kill david bains familiy.
    IMHO The answer will be found in the police
    Think about all that has gone before
    !
    • Stunned mullet 11.1

      2 August 2016 at 7:28 pm

      The reverse vampires ?
    • Psycho Milt 11.2

      3 August 2016 at 6:57 am

      You’re thinking the Bains (except David, of course) knew too much about who’s behind the chemtrails?
12. One Anonymous Bloke 12

    2 August 2016 at 7:21 pm

    On the one hand it’s bad luck for David Bain that unethical right wing trash have a say in his life.

    On the other hand it’s nice to see the government officially quantify Judith Collins’ blithering incompetence and vicious self-interest.
    • Chuck 12.1

      2 August 2016 at 7:42 pm

      Meanwhile in the real world…

      Most NZ’ers see the Government making a sound call on ending this saga…no one wins, especially the slain members of the Bain family.
      • One Anonymous Bloke 12.1.1

        2 August 2016 at 7:48 pm

        Most New Zealanders are more concerned about snapper, dickhead.
13. Jack Ramaka 13

    2 August 2016 at 7:50 pm

    Doesn’t give us much confidence in the Police, the Justice System or the Government, Judith finally got the answer she was looking for?
    • Halfcrow 13.1

      2 August 2016 at 8:34 pm

      Yeah, reminds me of Justice Mahon findings on the Erebus “litany of lies” a result Muldoon did not expect and was pissed off with. Now this shower of shit has taken it to higher art form, keep on having enquiries until you arrive at one that’s your agenda
      • Halfcrow 13.1.1

        2 August 2016 at 9:05 pm

        The last bit should have read, “until you arrive at one that suits your agenda”
14. RedLogix 14

    2 August 2016 at 8:36 pm

    A decision quite wonderful in it’s duplicity. Sir Humphrey would be proud!
15. Xanthe 15

    2 August 2016 at 8:47 pm

    But in the end we still dont know who dunnit. Despite various assertions made here its fairly clear it wasnt david so….. who was it?
    • Jenny Kirk 15.1

      2 August 2016 at 8:54 pm

      The cops fudged the evidence, or neglected to store it safely, and then the house was burnt down. Seems to me that wasn’t totally coincidental ….. and it certainly stopped anyone -else from having a very good look at whatever it was that went on in that house, at that time. No chance for a re-investigation.
      • Xanthe 15.1.1

        2 August 2016 at 9:01 pm

        It does make you wonder dosn’t it
      • Rosemary McDonald 15.1.2

        2 August 2016 at 9:51 pm

        “…the house was burnt down. Seems to me that wasn’t totally coincidental ”

        According to Callinan, the Executors of the the Bain’s will had the place burned to the ground…within a fortnight of the murders and without any objection from officials.

        You’d think the Police would have put a stop to it…evidence and all that.
16. Rodel 16

    2 August 2016 at 8:55 pm

    Regardless of my ( and our) less than well informed opinions on Bain’s guilt or innocence, it is not good in a democracy that politicians like Collins, Adams and co. can effectively override the decisions of the court.
    Collin’s obvious but irrelevant belief that he is guilty should not be a factor. That;s why we have courts and a judicial system.
    Do we want John Key, Andrew Little or watsisname from ACT having a say in how the courts should should treat us or pedalling our case around tame overseas judges until they find one that concurs with their prejudices?

    Their behaviour is the thin edge that leads to dictatorial decision making- the sort of thing we might expect of Trump, Mugabe or perhaps Putin but they just don’t see it.
    • Rodel 16.1

      2 August 2016 at 10:47 pm

      correction…’peddling’
    • Psycho Milt 16.2

      3 August 2016 at 7:01 am

      … it is not good in a democracy that politicians like Collins, Adams and co. can effectively override the decisions of the court.

      What decision of a court have politicians over-ridden in this case? No court has expressed a view on whether Bain should get compensation or not.
17. Venezia 17

    2 August 2016 at 10:07 pm

    For once I agree with David Seymour. The government shopped around until they got a report consistent with their position – so they did not have to pay compensation. This case has been thoroughly politicised, the police role in the investigation was bungled/shoddy/ incompetent, politicians have gone well beyond their brief, and there are too many inconsistencies in the “evidence” to convict. David Bain was acquitted and should have been compensated for the 13 years he spent in prison.
    • Ross 17.1

      2 August 2016 at 10:14 pm

      Nonsense. They got two reports. Binnie’s was a waste of money because he made fundamental mistakes. Various experts said so. I suggest you look at the evidence.
      • ianmac 17.1.1

        2 August 2016 at 11:05 pm

        John Campbell had an interview with Binnie tonight. Brilliant. First time Binnie has spoken out in response to Collin’s ugly bias.
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=201810585
        • Ross 17.1.1.1

          2 August 2016 at 11:16 pm

          I suggest you read Binnie’s report. It’s badly flawed.

          https://www.justice.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Publications/2012-David-Bain-report.pdf

          Oh and I suggest you read the evidence against David. It’s damning. As for John Campbell, he’s been backing the wrong horse for a while. Reminds me of TV3 patting themselves on the back after they reported marks on Robin Bain’s fingers proved he was the killer (the marks proved nothing of the sort).

          If the government had awarded compo, it would have been a travesty.

          http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-david-bains-innocence-appeal
          • Rosemary McDonald 17.1.1.1.1

            3 August 2016 at 9:27 pm

            “I suggest you read Binnie’s report. It’s badly flawed.”

            I’m half way through Ross, mate.

            And so far, after reading the Callinan report last night, the word “conjecture” is not constantly popping into my mind.
    • Psycho Milt 17.2

      3 August 2016 at 7:07 am

      The government shopped around until they got a report consistent with their position – so they did not have to pay compensation.

      If that were actually the case (which, given that Binnie’s report ignored the main point in his brief, is by no means certain), it’s fair enough. Compensation is an ex gratia payment made at Cabinet’s discretion, so they don’t have to pay compensation if they don’t want to. It would have been more honest to just tell Bain up front that he should consider himself very lucky to have been found not guilty and there was no way the Crown was going to bung him a red cent, but Simon Power was a pretty odd minister.
18. srylands 18

    3 August 2016 at 6:49 am

    “Judith Collins has a lot to answer for.”
    ____________

    How does this logic go? She saved taxpayers millions.

    Did you actually read the released report? It is compelling. Judith was dead right to reject the Binnie report.
    • Psycho Milt 18.1

      3 August 2016 at 7:12 am

      Yes. Much as I dislike Collins, we would have had to front up a lot more than $900 Gs if she hadn’t had the bollocks to call Binnie’s report what it was, so for once she actually did more good than harm.
    • Xanthe 18.2

      3 August 2016 at 8:00 am

      Yes i have read the link you posted, There is nothing of substance in it. Dont you understand that both the glasses lens and the bloody fingerprints on the gun have been comprehensively discredited, pull yer head out of yer arse and get out more,
      • ankerawshark 18.2.1

        3 August 2016 at 7:09 pm

        Hi Xanthe,

        Can you say a bit more about how the glass lens and bloody fingerprints have been discredited?
19. righty right 19

    3 August 2016 at 6:54 am

    justice has been done there was overwhelming evidence only lefties would claim any nation of someone being innocent and trying to bring the government derision and police into question. nobody challenges this government and gets away with it we rule you don’t take that left wing scum
20. Observer Tokoroa 20

    3 August 2016 at 8:15 am

    .
    .To Psycho Trolls

    . It interests me that you trolls are trashing the Privy Council and the NZ Justice System.

    . You are absolutely certain that David Bain committed the murders. Obviously you were present at the Bain home when David did it, for that is the only way you could know.

    You are so predictable. Your ability to make stuff up is a worry. You trash everyone who does not go along with National; Maori Party; and United Future.

    Do you think we all have to be as stupid and unsound as you Tory trolls?
    .
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      3 August 2016 at 3:01 pm

      If it’s between David Bain and his Dad having done the killings, odds are clearly on David being the perp.
21. smilin 21

    3 August 2016 at 4:17 pm

    No wonder the whole sorry saga of Bain and the murders has been a mess. Ever had to deal with the Dunedin CIB as an accused person in that era? Then you will know why it was a mess from the start .
22. Brigid 22

    3 August 2016 at 4:22 pm

    If would like David Bain to know I know he didn’t kill his family. That is unless, as someone has pointed out, he has magic feet.
23. Tanz 23

    4 August 2016 at 12:21 am

    It’s not actually compensation all, which implies innocence, but an ‘ ex gratia’ or ‘go away’ payment, which the minister was quick to point out. The squeaky wheel got oiled, but not surprising by the ever progressive Nats. No one ever talks about the victims either, sadly, least of all Karam and co.
    • Ross 23.1

      4 August 2016 at 7:01 am

      When David Bain wrote an affidavit prior to Ian Binnie writing his report, it made for interesting reading.

      My personal possessions have not been returned to me. For example, I had a full diving kit (SCUBA tank, gear and wet suit), collection of books, clothes, sporting and camping gear, certificates of my academic and sporting achievements, videos of the shows I had taken part in and recordings of my singing. I have no idea where any of these items are and do not know what happened to them after my relatives took possession of the house and its contents. Nothing has ever been disclosed to me.

      The wrongful conviction of me in 1995 took away my inheritance. My Dad had a beautiful collection of string instruments and Mum had her pottery. These items are only a tiny amount of the items they collected during their lives and all have been lost to me. Further examples are Stephen’s trumpet and Arawa’s flute, a collection of opals from Australia, a collection of Royal Doulton pieces, artwork, books, music, the land and the house itself.

      On top of all this, Mum and Dad had amassed an impressive library of photos and videos documenting the m any years they had been together and our family growing up together. All of these items, while not having great monetary value, all have a far higher sentimental value to me as they were my family’s possessions and would have been the things I could have remembered them by. Now all I have are the few photos released by my relatives to the Court for Use during the 2009 retrial.

      When I was arrested in June 1994, I was at University studying for a degree in Music and Drama. I had a strong interest in singing. I had found this vocation to be of great interest and hoped to pursue either a performance based career or, with the strong teaching background of my family, a teaching position.

      I have been told that I had the potential to have a career as successful as the New Zealand opera singer Jonathan Lemalu. Mr Lemalu is now engaged two years in advance and is singing all over the world. In 1992, my singing teacher told me when I started lessons that I had a wonderful voice and that I could one day create a valuable career For myself.

      Since my arrest in June 1994, I have not taken part in any form of musical expression as the trauma of the events I experienced has taken the joy of music away from me. The wrongful conviction of me and the time I spent in prison meant that the life I was planning has gone out the window. I feel as though I lost the major earning years of my life.

      No self awareness whatsoever. And throughout his 8 page affidavit, not a single mention of what his parents and siblings meant to him. It’s all me, me, me, I could’ve been the next Pavarotti.
24. Tanz 24

    4 August 2016 at 11:51 pm

    Yes, he never ever mentions his family. It’s all me me me. Illusions of grandeur/narcissim? That Binnie report is ridiculous, ignoring nearly all the physical evidence. Good on Collins, she showed spine on this, I always thought the first jury got it right, and the privy council made a progressive, weak and pandering decision.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS