Campbell on Collins

Written By: notices and features - Date published: 11:45 am, December 13th, 2012 - 63 comments
Categories: Judith Collins, law - Tags: binnie report, david bain, judith collins

I (r0b) am a bit too buried in the end-of-year rush to have researched this well enough to write a competent post on the topic. But it’s worth discussing, and (as usual) Gordon Campbell has a thorough and insightful account. Here’s some extracts, go check out Campbell at Scoop for the full article:

Gordon Campbell on Judith Collins’ handling of the Bain compensation report

Presumably, we are only days away (at most) from learning the contents of the report on the David Bain compensation case prepared by the distinguished retired Canadian judge, Ian Binnie. [Update: The report is expect to be released today.] Whatever the Binnie report says, nothing in it will change the Mickey Mouse handling of this episode by Justice Minister Judith Collins – who managed to simultaneously attack Binnie’s findings and reasoning abilities in public, while claiming privilege (and thus binding him to silence) against releasing the evidence to back up her assertions. …

It gets worse. In the process, Collins also showed an unfair predisposition to consult with the prosecution. Collins sought “advice” on the Binnie report from the Solicitor General – whose office spent the best part of two decades maintaining Bain’s guilt. She is, of course, free to consult anyone she likes, but it is reasonable to expect she should do so in an even-handed fashion. Instead, she (at the very least) discussed the contents of the report and sought advice on it from the prosecution, while denying Bain’s defence team anything like a similar courtesy. She also hired Robert Fisher QC to provide a “peer review” of Binnie’s report – but, as Labour justice spokesperson Charles Chauvel has pointed out on RNZ this morning, Collins either doesn’t know or won’t tell us what Fisher’s terms of reference are, and what level of documentation he has been given to enable him to conduct, within a mere matter of days, a meaningful evaluation of Binnie’s report. …

This is banana republic stuff from Collins. Would any international justice in future be willing to step into the firing line for the kind of treatment that has been meted out to Binnie? Hardly. …

In the past few weeks, Collins has been mooted by Parliamentary insiders as the most likely replacement for John Key as leader of the National Party if Key (a) got hit by a bus or more likely (b) got sufficiently tired of his job as PM to call it quits. By her appalling handling of the Binnie report, Collins has surely torpedoed any claim that she may be fit to lead the country anytime in the near future. …

What a travesty from our “Justice” Minister. In the same week, Education Minister Hekia Parata has been found by the High Court to have acted unlawfully. Both Ministers retain the confidence of the Prime Minister.

63 comments on “Campbell on Collins ”

Comments are now closed

One Tāne Viper 1

13 December 2012 at 11:50 am

Just read Campbell’s article. It’s a shocking indictment of Collins behaviour, behaviour which will no doubt increase her support among wingnuts.

Binnie’s thinly-veiled contempt for her actions is entirely justified.
Psycho Milt 2

13 December 2012 at 12:14 pm

Collins’ approach to this is hardly surprising, given:

1. Her approach to every other issue that’s confronted her as a Minister of the Crown.
2. The lack of any formal or informal sanctions for her handling of those earlier issues.
3. The impunity with which her colleague Paula Bennett has misused her position to breach others’ confidentiality while maintaining her own.

Collins really has nothing to fear from generating this clusterfuck because similar clusterfucks have had no consequences for the ministerial perpetrators. The worst aspect of it is that, as everyone is pointing out, it’s a political decision – sooner or later Cabinet has to grow a pair and make that decision, and bunging a Canadian hundreds of grand hasn’t absolved them of making it. Instead of blaming the Canadian for doing the job they paid him to do, Collins and her smug, lazy colleagues could try actually sitting down at the Cabinet table and doing the job they’re paid to do – which in this case, is to announce that Bain can stick his compensation claim up his arse (or some lawyerly equivalent).
- North 2.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 2:49 pm
  
  Backwoodsman, Boss Hogg, Banana Republic, Bombastic Bully, Baroness Thatcher, Bush Dubya. Not a lawyer’s………….you know what.
  
  First year law students’d be directed towards alternative pursuits for this woeful lack of comprehension of basic principles of the Rule of Law, Natural Justice, and Democratic Governance. On the other hand, and this is the bigger concern, Endora Collins has the comprehension but in her delusional subjectivity just doesn’t care.
  
  Bloody Disgraceful !
  
  And the Unctuous One simpers and wobbles on into Xmas. Fortified by adoring cow-eyes from the unspeakably inept Heki Pirau Parata. What fun their pretty summer BBQs will be. Everybody stroking everybody. Admiring themselves. Planet Key Weeee !
  
  These are the boys and girls who interminably nut on about taking responsibility. About manning-up. About doing the job. Citing the detestable, paru underclass who must be pariahed.
  
  What sort of role models are these brazen hypocrites, these moral crooks ?
- mike e 2.2
  
  14 December 2012 at 8:19 am
  
  psycho Justice binnie has got it severly wrong .
  David bains fresh blood skin hair anb wool fibre were found under Stephen Bains finger nails.
  Also the soap powder box in the laundry had david and stephens frezh blood with davids fresh finger.prints embedded in the blood.
  The socks David changed into had blood and brain splatter matching the same pattern as the blood and brain splatter on the curtains and carpet which means he was in the room hiding behind the curtains.
  The debacle of the second trial where one of Davids groupies!
  - Psycho Milt 2.2.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 1:42 pm
    
    psycho Justice binnie has got it severly wrong
    
    I agree, hence the view that Cabinet should “announce that Bain can stick his compensation claim up his arse (or some lawyerly equivalent).” However, at the time I wrote that comment Collins was busy ridiculing Binnie’s report without letting anyone see what he’d actually written – that is the kind of bullying and misuse of power that we’ve come to expect from her.
- onsos 2.3
  
  14 December 2012 at 1:45 pm
  
  Collins is particularly susceptible to blunders around legal matters. It’s as if she takes her background as a tax attorney as a basis for authority on all aspects of law.
RJLC 3

13 December 2012 at 12:36 pm

Disgraceful affair.

Collins should resign.

It also further exposes the extreme machinations the MoJ and the Crown will go to never back down on their position, to never admit fault, similar to NZ Police attitude but even more reprehensible.

Here’s a good example of Ministry manipulation of an Inquiry into the Peter Ellis case as exposed in NZ Law Journal :

http://www.peterellis.org.nz/2007/2007_francis_new_evidence.pdf
Anne 4

13 December 2012 at 12:50 pm

It would seem a large portion of the NZ public prefer thugs to govern them. Collingate is just today’s example. There will be another one tomorrow.
- Dr Terry 4.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 2:47 pm
  
  Surely Collins torpedoed her chances long before this shocker. Collins would make Shipley and Richardson look like kindly old aunties.
Treetop 5

13 December 2012 at 2:19 pm

Retired Judge Binnie is left to complete the report as Collins did not replace him even though Power appointed Judge Binnie. Then when Collins reads the Bain report she shouts incompetent.

Who is going to peer review Collins?
- onsos 5.1
  
  14 December 2012 at 1:43 pm
  
  That would be Mr Key’s job.
tc 6

13 December 2012 at 2:20 pm

Careful you’ll all be threatened with being sued for libel/defamation/global warming and whatever else is occupying her cerebral parking lot at the time.
- Treetop 6.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 2:41 pm
  
  Collins is now going to play ball as she has to be transparent. Not giving the terms of reference for the Fisher peer review does cause speculation and Collins did this herself. Binnie is either seen as being competent or incompetent by Collins and Collins has to state which one.
Curran's Viper 7

13 December 2012 at 2:49 pm

It is refreshing to see such unanimity, albeit from a sample of 4 so far.

Has Hooton committed himself to print on this issue ?
- Rhinoviper 7.1
  
  14 December 2012 at 7:46 am
  
  “Has Hooton committed himself to print on this issue ?”
  
  I’m sure if Collins sends him some money, he’ll offer his wise and objective opinion in her favour, or if someone else sends him some money for a different view, he’ll offer his wise and objective opinion in their support. He might even do both on the same day.
  
  In other words, who gives a phuque?
- Matthew Hooton 7.2
  
  14 December 2012 at 8:08 am
  
  Last public comment on National leadership is at http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/wr-opening-salvo-dump-rental-properties-now-lf-133603
  Nothing has happened since then to change my view – ie, Key loses in 2014, Shearer becomes PM, Collins becomes Opposition Leader, Adams or Bridges become her deputy.
  - Rhinoviper 7.2.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 8:13 am
    
    “Nothing has happened since then to change my view”
    
    Ha. Cheque not been cashed yet, eh?
  - mike e 7.2.2
    
    14 December 2012 at 2:22 pm
    
    Collins might be right on this subject but she is completely unelectable!
infused 8

13 December 2012 at 3:15 pm

I haven’t kept up with this or read anything on it but doesn’t he need to be found innocent to get compo?
aerobubble 9

13 December 2012 at 3:20 pm

Murder-suicide’s happen. Relatives do return and walk in on them, and will fight for their life, getting ‘evidence’ upon them. Seeing this evidence,t he innocent, may start fiddling with the washing machine especially given the Bain case. Fair trials take over a decade, and compensation will be denied.

The problem is without excessive, consistent and integral evidential processes, the lack of evidence would always play into the hands of the murder and against the walk in innocent, in NZ. The Bain family was weird, lost of direction, the kids withdrawn, soulless lawyers (and media) could see the slam dunk here and had no reluctance to merciful thoughts of happenstance.

Elsewhere in the world they have a legal fraternity that is capable of mercy, contrite to their own mistakes, and concerned to their standing, pride, in a nation of law. We currently have a government more interested in destroying process, classic revolutionary conservatism, that has elsewhere led to the collapse of the world economy, increasing un-abating environment stresses, and ignorance of resource limits. Why would it be any surprise, that clean green 100% NZ, also had efficient perfect justice system.

Its no good enough to leave it to the market to respond, say to the CTV building, by never hiring the people involved again, since they just leave for Australia anyway. That means its cowboy territory in NZ, you can get away with rank incompetence with a good spin doctor under the pay roll.
- Sosoo 9.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 9:04 pm
  
  Anyone with the least familiarity with “family annihilation” crimes knows that the father did it, because this sort of crime is almost always perpetrated by a father.
  
  The typical profile of a family annihilator is a middle-aged man, a good provider who appears dedicated, devoted and loyal to his family. However, he is usually quite socially isolated, with few friends and with profound feelings of frustration and inadequacy. The tipping point is some catastrophic loss or impending tragedy that threatens to undermine his sense of self and amplifies his feelings of impotence and powerlessness. In individuals for whom their family is an integral part of their identity – part of themselves, rather than a separate being – murdering the family is akin to a single act of suicide. It is a way of regaining control; of obliterating the impending crisis.
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8961851/What-drives-a-father-to-kill.html
  
  Sound like Robin Bain to you?
  
  This has always been a police screwup. Parricide is a rare crime whereas family annihilation is much more common.
  - VindowViper 9.1.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 2:51 am
    
    In individuals for whom their family is an integral part of their identity – part of themselves, rather than a separate being .
    
    Interestingly many of the individuals I’ve met over the years who’ve vociferously insisted that David had to be the killer and Robin had to be innocent … would fit the description quoted quite nicely.
    - aerobubble 9.1.1.1
      
      14 December 2012 at 3:09 pm
      
      The tragedy is so many needy people like the attention of getting in the limelight, the more wrong the better. I find it quite shocking their lawyers, and the crap they’ve talked about the Bain issue. From Binnie giving detail extra responses call muddling, to Binnie not understanding NZ law, or he got facts wrong, principles were missed (which were?). All done before Collins released the document for others to refute. But worse, Bain is innocent, so to have another lawyer on TV saying he has to prove innocence to get compensation just is draw dropping. Really is this not the most depraved adolescent legal fraternity in NZ. Collins should be disbarred, Key should sack her immediately. The compensation process was about an independent third party deciding balance of probabilities, he did, and Bain should get compensation.
  - mike e 9.1.2
    
    14 December 2012 at 9:06 am
    
    SoSo wrong if you look at mass family murderers its most likely the eldest son has committed the murder also being the one left alive !In every case of these murders the eldest son has continually denied murdering their family against over whelming evidence!
    If you look around the world their have been a dozen or so murders of this type all the evidence pointing to the oldest son,as well as a high degree of dysfunctionality in the family!
    Not one piece of hard evidence pointed to Robin Bain.
    All the hard evidence pointed to David being the Murderer!
    Here is a list off the hard evidence
    Davids fresh blood skin hair and woollen jersey particles found under Stephens finger nails
    laundry soap powder box had David and Stephens fresh blood on it with his fresh finger prints embedded in the blood
    the socks David was wearing to the hospital which the detective made sure weren’t polluted had blood and brain splatter on them in the same pattern that was found on the carpet and curtains in the room that Robin was murdered making david the murderer as he claimed he was on the paper round! the only way he could have got that pattern on his socks was if he was in the room at the time of the Murder!
RJLC 10

13 December 2012 at 4:07 pm

What a complete farce.

Here are Fisher’s “findings”

Reads like Collins wrote it.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/Summary%20of%20key%20findings%20Hon%20Dr%20Robert%20Fisher%20QC%20%281%29.pdf
- the pigman 10.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 7:29 pm
  
  ^^ hasn’t read the full text of either report.
  
  Think twice before leaping to criticize Fisher, however – those instructed by the government to review/critique other expert reports seldom identify so many demonstrable errors. Remember if Fisher were seen to just be “nit-picking”, his criticism would be swiftly and firmly rebutted by Binnie.
  
  If you leap to judgment on this one, you are being no better behaved than Collins (who has at least read both reports), although admittedly she has a higher degree of responsibility in this episode 😉
  - Pascal's bookie 10.1.1
    
    13 December 2012 at 7:33 pm
    
    Binnie’s email in response to Fisher is also well worth reading, notwithstanding Collins dismissal of it because he capitalised a word or two.
- mike e 10.2
  
  14 December 2012 at 2:27 pm
  
  Rjlc when you read binnies interview with bain it makes me sick why didn’t he ask how his blood skin hair and woollen jersey fibres get under stephens finger nails or how come the blood and brain particles end up on yor socks when you were supposed to be doing a paper run!
  $400,000 for a lame piece of work we want our money back!
tracey 11

13 December 2012 at 4:50 pm

Does anyone know what date fisher got the report to review?

As a former pres of the law society and as a minister of justice she has insulted an experienced jurist. By all means have some questions but direct them to binnie and invite him to write an addendum addressing them.
- RJLC 11.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 9:48 pm
  
  Does anyone know what date fisher got the report to review?
  
  If you are wondering how long he spent on it, that would depend on how much time he spent surfing the net.
- VindowViper 11.2
  
  13 December 2012 at 10:03 pm
  
  Actually her attack on Binnie is quite remarkably insulting, uncouth and vulgar.
  
  Really the PM has no option but to express no confidence in her. Won’t happen of course.
- mickyviper in solidarity 11.3
  
  14 December 2012 at 9:09 am
  
  September 24.
  
  Binnie in his response to Collins says “[i]t is of interest that … Mr Fisher was retained on 26 September … he met the Minister the same day … and without having performed the “first stage” analysis he reports that “as we discussed, a second and final report will be required for the purpose of reviewing the evidence afresh and arriving at its own conclusions on the merits”. As he points out normally one would expect Fisher to make his analysis of Binnie’s report and have his analysis considered by the Minister BEFORE a decision to have an entirely new report performed on the merits.
tracey 12

13 December 2012 at 5:19 pm

I have answered my own question. Attached to the fisher report, note it is called an interim report, is the letter of appointmt and terms of reference from collins.
Treetop 13

13 December 2012 at 5:58 pm

Urewera raid
Kim Dotcom
Institutional failure by Dunedin CIB

If anything Binnies report has shown me just how incompetent the NZ Police are time and time again and I also know this through personal experience with the police over 35 years regarding my cycles of complaint which I hope to attend to next year.

It will never be established beyond reasonable doubt who killed the Bain family, my opinion is that Bain deserves compensation for the police’s investigations being inadequate, rushed, jumping to conclusions and being inconclusive.
- VindowViper 13.1
  
  13 December 2012 at 10:08 pm
  
  It will never be established beyond reasonable doubt who killed the Bain family
  
  Exactly. Frankly I don’t care if David Bain is guilty or innocent. All that I care about is the integrity of the process that reaches a decision … and in this case no fewer than six eminent non-New Zealand jurists have looked at that process and declared it to be fatally flawed.
  
  The idea that Judith Collins can now stick her oar in to get a result to suit her obvious personal agenda is simply debacle upon debacle and will in the long run cost even more.
  
  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court really has to step in and put and end to this nonsense.
  - RJLC 13.1.1
    
    13 December 2012 at 11:11 pm
    
    <i>The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court really has to step in and put and end to this nonsense.</i>
    
    As the Judiciary rushed to defend justice Mahon?
    Don’t hold your breath.
- Glg 13.2
  
  14 December 2012 at 6:22 am
  
  Yes, it certainly looks like the Police are behind this, they really don’t like their errors being pointed out to them that’s for sure.
  - Curran's Viper 13.2.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 6:57 am
    
    Having attended the session of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Arthur Allan Thomas case in which the possibility of a planted bullet was raised,
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Allan_Thomas
    and a session of the the Erebus inquiry under Justice Mahon
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mahon_Inquiry
    it all seems eerily familiar.
    One thing disturbs me. When I submitted a postgraduate thesis I had three examiners.
    Collins has described a second opinion from Robert Fisher QC as a “peer review”.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain
    Where are the peers Judith ?
    When I once attended a NZ Law Society function I remember hearing malicious comments
    about Bain from some parties while one of Bains legal defence team sat unhappily to one side ..
    Aotearoa can be a very small place.
    - Treetop 13.2.1.1
      
      14 December 2012 at 2:47 pm
      
      If you did not hear Sir Jeffery Palmer on RNZ nine to noon this morning have a listen. The Bain issue has become political and Palmer recommends a 1998 finding from the Law Commission to be the answer, an independent advisory panel. Palmer put it into a nut shell when he said there is no current process to remedy the Bain situation.
      
      Did you know that Palmer was critical of Mahon when it came to natural justice?
      
      Did you know that Gilpin (then a police sergeant re Erebus) would not take no for an answer in having the missing contents of Collin’s ring binder investigated?
      
      Chief justice Elias was right about the Moyle inquiry (the police not being investigated was disquieting) only the cop (L.C) involved with the initial incident was part of the inquiry. L.C disclosed the incident to 10 policing and one of the 10 policing later went on to work for the DPS when Muldoon was PM and this cop knew that I knew about the incident and he kept his mouth shut.
      
      Gilpin got involved with my case for two solid years in 1990 and he got L.C. to look for a 1979 CIB file which would incriminate L.C.
      
      The full police evidence into the 1976 December inquiry is still locked away, (intially for 25 years).
      
      When it comes to historical cases the police and the government drop the ball time and time again. I am so sick of hearing how the police mislead the government and then the government say that they cannot interfere in a police matter. A lot comes out about police incompetence re their investigation when correspondence is received from them. When whole files are missing within a 10 year period then you know the police really have something to hide.
      
      When it comes to the police involvement regarding the Thomas cartridge planting the public have not seen the almighty police cock up on this. Meurant has contradicted his ex employer and tried to be transparent.
      
      See 5 Who is going to peer review Collins?
      
      For Collins to appoint another legal mind is not the answer. Bain was acquitted and had what was known at the retrial been available at the first trial Bain would not have gone to Jail. The compo is about Bain being wrongly sent to jail, not whether or not he committed the crime.
- aerobubble 13.3
  
  14 December 2012 at 3:30 pm
  
  It looked to me like a government who dumpster dive for the legal opinion it wants, and has no respect for the rule of law. Balance of probabilities standard is not used to jail citizens, so its wrong for it to justify not compensation Bain. People make mistakes, courts make them, lawyers make them, we cannot have a government piggy backing on bad process with more bad process to get the indefensible. When the evidence isn’t there, the mob cannot be called in.
xtasy 14

14 December 2012 at 12:58 am

May I repeat again, what I stated a fair few times before:

New Zealand as it is, is being run like a “dictatorship” of sorts, where an elite runs most affairs – and even manages to apply “the law” – at its convenience, and to serve its preferred purposes and needs. A sophisticated “dictatorship” is not noticed as such, and that is what NZ is close to.

So David Bain went through all the available legal processes before the highest courts, was in the end found not guilty (beyond reasonable doubt), and now we have a Minister of Justice daring to “re-interpret” all previous findings again, talking in a way, where she implies, the onus lies with Bain, to sufficiently prove his innocence, before any compensation may be justified.

An independent report, commissioned by former Minister for Justice, Simon Power, and prepared by a highly qualified, well reputed senior judge from Canada, is torn to bits by a local QC, who was actually from the start trying all, to prove that Bain was not innocent.

Crusher Collins dares, as a layperson, to re-interpret the law, to make reports suit the needs of the government. This one is not the one she and her government like, so they rubbish it, choose a previously partial legal expert to “review” it, and possibly now they will get yet another person to write yet another report, hopefully to suit the preferences of Collins and the government.

That is banana-republic stuff!

But sorry, dear all, I have myself been through so much crap, I have seen with own eyes and heard with own ears, how supposedly “independent” review authorities here make decisions that are anything but independent.

The government always can access top legal experts through Crown Law, and they always take matters through all the courts, trying to beat the ones who challenge the Crown on matters that could cost it money or reputation.

Nothing new in the state of NZ Aotearoa, where the sun shines, the beaches, mountains, lakes and forests look picturesque, but where there is a heck of a lot of rot in the system. Sadly far too few can see it or even know about this stuff.
- the pigman 14.1
  
  14 December 2012 at 1:27 am
  
  xtasy:
  
  a) Fisher is a highly respected jurist and legal academic, and you are completely out of line asserting he is particularly partial;
  b) Collins is not a layperson, but a lawyer and ex-president of the Auckland District Law Society and ex-vice-president of the NZ Law Society (honestly speaking though, I have little idea how she was regarded professionally by her contemporaries); and
  c) read Binnie’s conclusions, Fisher’s summary of his critique, and Binnie’s e-mail response.
  
  That is the least you could do before launching into such polemic.
  
  Collins’ handling of it was shabby, but that doesn’t justify the wild inferences you draw.
  - xtasy 14.1.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 8:00 am
    
    I have to accept that Collins herself is not a “layperson”, as the has studied and practiced law, and as stated, was also president of the ADLS.
    So I accept that, for sure.
    
    She has never been a judge though, and her specialist areas have not been criminal law, she practiced in employment, property, commercial and tax law.
    
    “Legal experts” do naturally differ on many controversial cases, but despite of that, the Bain case has been scrutinised during 2 major trials, went through every detail, so Bain having been found innocent beyond reasonable doubt is what the courts finally determined.
    
    In other jurisdictions this would be enough to lay the matter to rest and consider compensation for wrongful imprisonment. But in NZ it appears to be handled differently, where it is up to the government to make such a determination whether compensation should be paid, and thus they apparently go by putting the onus on Bain, to prove yet again his innocence.
    
    Apart from that I can only talk about certain experiences I had with some matters before review authorities of various types, and the persons put there to hear cases have in some regards been selected in a way that was from my view not in line with ensuring proper independence. That to my impression though is quite common in little New Zealand, where there appears to be an environment of too many knowing each other and not wanting to step on each other’s toes.
    
    That is a breeding ground for injustice.
    - aerobubble 14.1.1.1
      
      14 December 2012 at 3:34 pm
      
      +1
      
      The parliament is more like a Senate of old.
  - xtasy 14.1.2
    
    14 December 2012 at 8:08 am
    
    Perhaps I may add to the question of whether a lawyer is “competent”, “good” or whatever, simply for having passed a degree and possibly even having worked in practicing law, there can be many considerations about what level of competence a particular lawyer may have.
    
    I did during the time that Simon Power was minister have a talk with a lawyer about that minister’s competence, in view of the National led government’s changing the law to abolish the defence of provocation. He commented on Power’s “competence” and deeper understanding of law and the principle of “justice”.
    
    That lawyer had a damned dim view of Power! He was even referred to as an “idiot”!
    
    So no wonder Power changed his career (like Collins did) and became a politician. He is now running Westpac, so yet another career change there, NOT in his learned profession, as you may note!
    
    I would give a top, senior judge from Canada more respect than Power or Collins any time, even if he may have made some “mistakes” in his report, which I question to be so serious enough to put the whole report into disrepute.
    
    But thanks for your suggestion to read the report and review in detail. Maybe that is what I will spend my “leisure time” this weekend on?!
  - RJLC 14.1.3
    
    14 December 2012 at 11:38 pm
    
    <i>a) Fisher is a highly respected jurist and legal academic, and you are completely out of line asserting he is particularly partial;</i>
    
    yeah yeah yeah, he also surfed internet porn while on a work computer when he was a high court judge.
    Lest we forget http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=940245
    I tend to regard him as a safe toady for ministers in a fix.
    - xtasy 14.1.3.1
      
      15 December 2012 at 11:11 pm
      
      “Justice Fisher looked at adult movies on Department for Courts computers for about 90 minutes over two weeks 15 months ago. He has apologised and promised not to do it again.”
      
      Dame Sian Elias said it was merely a “lapse” in a distinguished career.
      
      Now I wonder, did Judith Collins know about these “lapses” ten years ago? I doubt it!
      
      But thanks for pointing this out RJLC, it is the stuff that is easily swept under the carpet.
      
      Now, how many “ordinary” workers would get disciplined harshly or even get fired over such “lapses”? I am afraid, this is yet another case of the law being applied differently between the “elitarian” professionals and the common office cleaner, or whatever they may be doing for a job.
      
      It just reinforces a lot of what I have learned over the years myself. There is one law for those at the top, and another kind of law applied for those at the bottom. Add a bit of brown colour to the equation, and it gets even more unjust. NO real surprises there!
- Curran's Viper 14.2
  
  14 December 2012 at 9:52 am
  
  I think ‘oligarchy’ is the word you may be searching for.
- Treetop 14.3
  
  14 December 2012 at 3:35 pm
  
  This is banana – republic stuff!
  
  Yep and this was heard this morning about the Fijian police who are accused of assaulting persons who are arrested, make a complaint.
  
  When there is executive interference this is police state stuff.
  
  In my case the purpose of going to a minister of parliament was to have an independent person assigned to do an investigation for a number of reasons, not to have the last minister I approached say the following to me via her private secretary:
  
  “The Hon Judith Collins, Minister of Police, has asked me to acknowledge and thank you for your email of 18 November 2008 received by this office on 20 November 2008. Although your email was sent to the email address of the ministerial office of Hon Annette King, it has been referred to the office of Hon Judith Collins who is now the Minister of police.”
  
  I do not know who referred the email to the person it was not intended for; the National Government were sworn in on 19 November 2008.
  - Treetop 14.3.1
    
    14 December 2012 at 4:29 pm
    
    Correction 14.3 not to have the last minister I approached…
    
    Key was emailed in June 2009 and Power replied in August 2009. “Your letter has been referred to me for reply as the matters you raise fall within my portfolio responsibilities as Minister of Justice.”
    
    Power suggested I go to the IPCA. I consider going to the IPCA as a last resort as I know what liars the police are and I have NO confidence in their process.
- Treetop 14.4
  
  14 December 2012 at 4:04 pm
  
  I would like to know what Power would do were he in Collins shoes?
  
  I approached Power in 2006 and the police lied to him and a request was made for a 2002 file; Robinson appointed C. Rickards to another complaint cycle in 2002.
  - Quasimodo 14.4.1
    
    15 December 2012 at 7:09 am
    
    If you think our politicians are bad, you should have a look at some they’ve got across the Tasman .. or the US.
  - xtasy 14.4.2
    
    15 December 2012 at 11:16 pm
    
    As much as I dislike Powers, I would presume, he would probably have dealt whith this a bit more competently. Collins has a real problem, it is a “power trip” and “controlling” personality she has, and that will be her downfall. The bit of knowledge and intelligence she has is being compromised by those personality traits. I just dread what she is doing to “fix” what has been going on at ACC.
    
    If her performance in this matter is anything to go by, I would be very, very afraid, if I was an ACC claimant, particularly one with complex issues!
North 15

14 December 2012 at 6:42 am

That Judith Collins was once a practising lawyer and was once a practising law society officeholder is irrelevant, except perhaps as to indicate a propensity to tug the forelock in those who facilely cite those historical facts as indicators of expertise and probity in Collins’ performance as Minister of Justice.

Collins is playing the stock standard game of the Key administration. As a first measure, attack the practitioners be they nurses, teachers, legal aid lawyers, beneficiaries, whomsoever. Then, having blackened names on the public stage proceed to the desired political end.

This furore is not about the competence or impartiality of Binnie or Fisher, in which respects and as to both of whom there is no rational question. Weirdly it is hardly even about Bain. This is about an artful, long experienced self-promoter of no particular intellectual or professional distinction doing her number to her personal political advantage.

The prize is leadership of the National Party and (if she’s extra-artful) short term prime ministership in the style of Marshall, Moore and Shipley.
- Jim Viperald - Once was colonised 15.1
  
  14 December 2012 at 8:28 am
  
  Oh, and this from you-know-who:
  
  “… I can provide you with another [lawyer] that will give you a counterview”
vto 16

14 December 2012 at 7:43 am

All of this says two simple things;

1. Do not trust the police.

2. Do not trust the government.

… as if they even needed saying again…..
- mike e 16.1
  
  14 December 2012 at 2:29 pm
  
  vto Would you trust a psychopathic murderer they are the ultimate liars!
vivaciousviper 17

14 December 2012 at 9:41 am

Collins has trampled over this man’s reputation publicly,his integrity has been attacked also,
this is disgraceful, its’ obvioius that any reports the govt gets that dont agree with their
agenda then the authors and the contents are rubbished in the media,again disgraceful.
Is Key out of the country yet ? if he isn’t, he should tap ‘crusher’ on the shoulder and tell
her to have more respect for Binnie and appologize to him publicly.
alwyn 18

14 December 2012 at 10:12 am

I found Meteria Turei’s opinions on the issue of some interest.

Among other things she said “Binnie did what he was asked and Ms Collins is throwing her toys because she doesn’t like it” and “Rather than keep on looking for the advice she wants, she needs to act on the advice she’s got”. She added “She wanted an independent review of the case and thats what she’s got”.

I am sure that her views on these matters are always consistent and not biased by her political orientation so I would like to know whether anyone can point me to the views on another matter I am sure she must have commented on.
Can anyone give me a reference to her saying the following about Fracking?

“The Commissioner for the Environment did what she was asked and Gareth Hughes is throwing his toys because he doesn’t like it”
“Rather than keep on looking for the advice he wants, he needs to act on the advice he’s got”
“He wanted an independent review and that’s what he’s got”.
Surely she would have backed the scientifically trained Commissioner for the Environment rather than someone who’s claim to an education is that he did his degree in Religious Studies.
North 19

14 December 2012 at 11:59 pm

Read Binnie’s email response to Collins and Fisher.

Points powerfully made. Subtle expressions of annoyance to rival Michael Reed QC.

The repeated snipey badmouthing of Binnie interfered with senses. The “game” was working – I was starting to wonder.

Binnie cites the authority of Lord Bingham in the Privy Council appeal. You can’t go higher than that people. Masterful !

I was left starting to think that Collins believes everyone else in the army is out of step
- Curran's Viper 19.1
  
  16 December 2012 at 7:57 am
  
  Good one, Gordon.
  http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/2012/12/14/gordon-campbell-on-the-fallout-from-the-bain-compensation-row/
jaymam 20

16 December 2012 at 5:55 pm

Scary picture. Hmm, might be useful for the next election!
http://i45.tinypic.com/2a8nhc3.jpg