by frog
I’ve been hopping along for much of the day trying to keep up with the Waterview-Mt Roskill motorway protest march. I think I’ve only ever been on one longer march in my life, and that was 15 years ago, when I was a much fitter frog than I am today.
Anyway, I’m sorry that I couldn’t find the time until now to blog on the David Bain case, which is obviously a hot topic.
So (feeling a bit stuffed, and recovering from the long march), I’ll just quote Toad on g.blog, who often comments here, and in turn, who quotes our former Green MP Nandor Tanczos.
They both make a lot of sense:
Toad:
In the aftermath of the David Bain acquittal, former Green MP Nandor Tanczos has blogged in support of a Criminal Appeals Review Office:Nandor:
Former High Court judge Sir Thomas Thorp, in his 2006 report into miscarriages of justice in New Zealand, suggested that as many as twenty people might be wrongfully imprisoned for serious offenses in New Zealand. He cited work in 2002 by Bruce MacFarlane, the then Deputy Attorney General of Manitoba, on what factors make a miscarriage of justice more likely.MacFarlane listed four predisposing factors: public pressure for a conviction, unpopular defendants, lawyers turning the process of trial into a game, and noble cause corruption – that is, persuading witnesses to alter their testimony, or planting evidence, because police genuinely believe that the person charged is guilty.
He also listed eight direct causes. These were: eyewitness misidentification; police mishandling of the police investigation; inadequate disclosure by the prosecution; unreliable scientific evidence; using criminals as witnesses, such as jailhouse informants; inadequate defence work; false confessions; and misleading circumstantial evidence. He said that these factors are present throughout the Commonwealth jurisdictions. There is no doubt that they are present in a number of cases in New Zealand. Personally I believe that the convictions of Peter Ellis and John Barlow also need to be reviewed, but to go further, I am convinced that Scott Watson is entirely innocent of the killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in the Marlborough Sounds in 1997.
Whether he will get a chance to show it is another matter. Wrongful convictions are incredibly difficult to overturn, because of the design of our appeal system. Once a jury has convicted, appeals can only be, by and large, on points of law. There are good reasons for this, but it does mean that substantive problems do not get picked up in some cases.
The last resort in such cases is a petition to the Governor-General for a retrial or for a pardon. These are handled internally by the Ministry of Justice and the process is ad hoc and entirely unsatisfactory. That’s why justice Thorp’s main recommendation was for an independent Criminal Appeals Review Office, as exists in Canada and the United Kingdom. Many prominent lawyers, the Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society have all echoed Sir Thomas’s call, especially in the wake of the Rex Haig and David Doherty cases. Parliament’s Justice and Electoral Select Committee backed the idea after it looked into the petitions calling for an inquiry into the Peter Ellis case.
Toad:
I agree with Nandor.
And as well as Scott Watson and Peter Ellis, I would suggest that David Tamihere needs to be added to the list. The Police evidence has already been found to be shonky, but I guess, as a Maori guy who already had a record for serious criminal offending, Tamihere didn’t stand much chance.
Being banged up for 13 years, as Bain was, for something there was eventually shown to be insufficient evidence to prove someone ever did is a very bad look.
The Greens’ proposal for a Criminal Appeals Review Office would ensure justice is delivered much more promptly.
I agree with both Toad and Nandor. Justice should be delivered both accurately and promptly. We need a justice system that can respond more promptly than has happened in Bain’s case when something has obviously gone seriously awry in the way a case has been prosecuted.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Sat, June 6th, 2009
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Part of the problem with the Bain retrial was the length of time between the murders and the trial, so that there was insufficient remaining evidence to convict him. Had he been retried sooner when more of the evidence was available and the recollection of witnesses stronger and more reliable, the result might have been different.
I think a Criminal Appeals Review Office would be a good idea.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As we don’t have any equivalent to a ‘not proven’ verdict, isn’t it more accurate to conclude that a ‘not guilty’ verdict cannot be taken to be equivalent to stating that the defendant is innocent, but rather that the defendant is either thought to be innocent OR it is not proven that the defendant is guilty?
It seems that the criteria for compensation (for wrongful conviction) requires a more stringent proof of innocence as opposed to that of guilt?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In Ideas Crime and Punishment series you’ll here a prisoner describe how he has pleaded guilty to go back in for a “catch up”…. “it’s like that TV program Cheers“.
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/ideas/2009/05/ideas
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
….and Nandor would be right too. The immediate question is just how many falsely convicted people remain in Jail in NZ?; and further, if the Privy Council annuls David’s conviction,why the need for another shoddy trial?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I also don’t understand why David has to prove his innocence to get compensation. He was sent to prison under the assumption that he was guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. The Privy council found irregularities in the trial. A retrial with ALL available evidence found that he was not guilty “beyond reasonable doubt”. Therefore he was sent to prison because of a mistaken assumption by the crown. So he should receive compensation for the mistake.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would prefer we looked at overhauling the justice system completely, rather than simply adding yet another carriage to an already too long gravy train.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s the Ellis case that disturbs me most. With the Bain case 5 people DID die, a crime DID occur, who did it was the issue. David served time for a crime he didn’t commit.
In the Ellis case I’d say no child abuse occurred at all. Peter Ellis served time for a crime that never happened!
But the justice system seems incapable of stepping back to take another look at the big picture… Is the justice system working well when a difficult case comes along?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The first thing we need is a move to accept the Scottish idea of a possible verdict of “not proven” rather than “not guilty”
“Not guilty” carries the assumption of “innocent” and therefore opens the door to compensation claims.
“Not proven” opens the door to further investigation. It is a statement that the evidence is not strong enough to remove reasonable doubt, but without going so far as to imply innocence.
The second thing we need is a change away from the combative system we now have, towards a system similar to the French “inquisitorial” system where the emphasis is on discovery of evidence, facts and plausible theories prior to a trial going ahead.
The third thing we need is something like the American “DAs” office, assessing the quality of evidence, measuring it against the standard required for a case to proceed, and removing from the courts the need to go through the “depositions” stage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I wonder how unusual the Bain case was, in the sense that it all stemed from family relationships, rather than mental illness or overt motivations such as squabbling over property.
“I am convinced that Scott Watson is entirely innocent of the killing of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in the Marlborough Sounds in 1997.”
interesting how people are so sure. Why was Joe Karrim so sure? It could represent a talent but it could also be a deception of the mind?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
good thinking jh; and there is a fine line involved – too fine to hang a life on.
PS Who did Jo Karam shoot?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greengeek – I totally agree on the inquisitorial system and on the public prosecutors office. Big project though. The J&E select committee did recommend the govt begin work on investigating how we could move towards a more inquisitorial system, but don’t think they ever did anything.
jh – I’m normally pretty circumspect about expressing opinions on guilt and innocence. There are a number of cases where I think that the convictions are unsafe ie. don’t appear to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, although I can’t say whether I think that the person is or is not guilty. Watson is different IMO. The reason I’m so sure in the Watson case is that the evidence points so strongly away from him. The description of the perp, the vessel he took the kids to, and a variety of circumstantial evidence do not fit Watson at all.
The thing that finally convinced the jury, I think, was the DNA evidence linking a hair said to be found on Watsons blanket to Olivia Hope. However the first examination of the hairs from his blanket turned up black curly hairs – mostly pubes. Only later, on a second examination, was a long blond hair found. Curiously, hair from Olivia’s hairbrush had shortly before been examined in the same place.
In addition, a small slit was found in the corner of the evidence bag containing the hairs from Watson’s blanket. That makes me very concerned, given the lead investigators certainty that Watson was the guy – something he decided the first time he ran through the list of people present at the party where they disappeared. Those two factors certainly remove any probative value from the DNA evidence.
I don’t see anything else of substance linking Watson to the kids’ disappearance, but I do see lots of evidence pointing away from him.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree we need such reforms and would back them all the way..
The Ellis case was a dreadful tragedy. The person really doing the damage was the therapist who was a key witness against him. She should be in gaol.
The Ellis case shows that another of those contributing factors is “mass hysteria”.
Remember satanic rituals? Whatever happened to them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I agree that the system, as it currently stands, is broken, but I’m not sure an inquisitorial system is really very fair. The fact that the crown thinks someone is guilty, and the defendant believes they are not, naturally creates two sides in opposition. The idea of the adversarial system is that the judges do not start of taking one side or the other. But in an inquisitorial system, judges actively work to get prosecutions – so really it is everyone vs the defendant, and therefore likely to be even worse than the status quo.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You make a very good point and certainly inquisitorial systems are not free of problems (remember Dreyfuss?). I like the idea in principle, though, of a process that aims at finding the truth rather than working out who is the better lawyer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shoot…you could buy all the lawyers in this woody town with a case of rum – describing absolute truths can be spun absolutely any way, any Lawyer wants – it renders our system spurious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This Country is far too small & the legal fraternity too incestuous for a closed system of any kind to work.
We need input from Canada, Australia & GB in some form of higher body to protect the integrity of the legal structures.
What hope for another Bain type case without
the Privy Council or something to replace it?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek
The problem with not proven is that for a person charged with an offence there is the stigma of haven been/remaining the chief suspect. Not proven for such a person takes away the presumption of innocence.
As to separating investigation from prosecution and replacing deposition by using the DA system – how about a separate investigative unit which is neither police nor prosecution? If they agree with the police decision to prosecute, then the prosecution unit takes over.
I don’t know much about the work of a Criminal Trials Review Office elsewhere, but the idea of a group which focuses on whether justice is doine through the court process is appealing. Within the legal process their is the Court of Appeal and in place of the old PC, the Supreme Court.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
frog
I don’t know much about the work of a Criminal Trials Review Office elsewhere, but the idea of a group which focuses on whether justice is done through the court process is appealing. Only some redress occurs within the legal process, via the Court of Appeal and in place of the old PC, the Supreme Court.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Peter Williams demonstrates intellectual dishonesty on Morning Report this morning. He is dismissive of the Scottish verdict :”I suppose you can quibble but the ordinary people just see this as a victory.” (or something). He then bangs his usual drum as though we had just seen one of those spectacular cases with a late confession by the villain (as in a Perry Mason novel).
http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/morningreport
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The Jennifer Mary beard case was a famous case where the police backed off charging the main suspect. Had they charged him I can imagine the same sort of scenario as occurred with David Bain. This case followed the Arthur Allen Thomas case where the police had suffered a blow to their credibility.
http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.aspx?ID=10655
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If there is one thing to come out of the sham that was the Bain trial (the man remains as guilty as sin in my book) it is that we must remove the right to silence from those charged with a serious offence.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/national/mnr/2009/06/08/lawyers_say_bain_case_could_shake_justice_system
“Plain fact is that he has been acquited by judge and jury
……..he has cleared his name, he’s been declared innocent, he’s ”
“has he actually been declared innocent as …..”?
well I suppose your technically right, but from a practical point as far as the Scottish verdict but as far as the unwashed are concerned he’s won the case, he’s innocent …
and to Mr QC you’ve won a great forensic victory ” (?????)
“shows bias by ESR , it shows tunnel vision by the police it shows……”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I understand an inquisitorial system not as “everybody against the defendant”.
My understanding is that the “examining magistrate” (judge) investigates the case in a formal sense, he questions everybody involved, including the witnesses and accused and then determines if the accused has “a case to answer”. In most inquisitorial systems, a criminal defendant does not have to answer questions about the crime itself but may be required to answer all other questions at the later trial.
The intention is not the prosecution of the accused but to find the truth, there is no onus on anyone at this stage to prove guilt or innocence and the magistrate searches for evidence for and against the accused. Both the defence and the prosecution can ask the examining magistrate to investigate specific issues they believe takes their respective cases further and can appeal decisions in this regard.
If the examining magistrate finds the accused has the case to answer, the case is referred for hearing in another court/tribunal. This is not the examining magistrate and he/she plays no part at all. The examining magistrates role is just to objectively determine if there is “a case to answer’. In the hearing court the case is heard in an adverserial way i.e state vs accused, both presenting their cases. A criminal defendant is not presumed guilty in an inquisitorial system. Nevertheless, since a case would not be brought to this court against a defendant unless there is evidence indicating guilt, the system does not require the presumption of innocence that is fundamental to the adversarial system. The prosecution and defence are on equal footing, unlike the adverserial system where the onus is on the prosecution.
It is normally said that the adversorial system as we know it and the inquisitorial system generally comes to the same result by different means, I’m not sure on what this is based.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh, BTW, due to the rule on double jeopardy David Bain can now write a best selling book confessing to the murders (as a work of fiction or non fiction), setting out in detail how he did it (either as a confession or as he imagines it) and he cannot be charged with murder again.
The finding of the court is not “innocent”, just that the crown did not prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt i.e there are other reasonably possible alternative perpetrators, not just him. This is why he would have difficultly claiming compensation, the onus of proof is on him that he was wrongly charged. Remember the OJ Simpson cases where in a criminal trial (where the onus is to prove he was guilty “beyond a responsable doubt”) he was found not guilty, but in a later civil case for damages by his victim’s family (where the onus was ‘on the balance of probabilities’) the jury ruled that on the balance of probabilities he did commit the offence and compensation was granted. The difference between the 2 cases was the onus of proof. David Bain faces the same type of difficulties to get compensation, he now carries the burden of proof.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love it Big Blow. In one fell swoop you would kill almost a thousand years of common law and precedent. You must be the font of all wisdom to make such claims. Are you a distinguished member of the law commission? Should be be doffing our caps whenever we read your commentary on our judicial system?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
In the French System, the “examining Magistrate” works pretty much in the same way as the Police hierarchy does in the adversarial approach we use here. Police here have to demonstrate to their superiors that they have a solution to the crime and sufficient evidence to achieve a conviction.
If the standard of proof used is too low, or the evidence has been manipulated, the wrong decision will be made in both systems. The difference is that in our system EVERYONE is presumed innocent until found guilty – and everyone CAN insist on a trial by jury. In the French system, everyone is considered culpable at the start and the ‘accused’ is seen by the general public to be guilty prior to any verdict being formally passed.
I think I prefer the presumption of innocence.
On the topic of the overall system, I think
Andrew W got it exactly right at 9:37 am when he said
We have expensive facilities being put to six to seven hours of productive use per day, for five days a week – not optimal use of the asset. It would be reasonable to have Magistrates who were able to deal with simple cases with limited sentencing options available to them, with the proviso that any accused could opt for a jury trial, but would not have those same sentencing options available if found guilty. The current courts could be used on a rotating shift basis, with Magistrates doing 7-10 am and 5-10 pm shifts and judges having exclusive use between 10 am and 5 pm.
We also need to do away with ‘discovery’ replacing it with an exchange of documents, and let the trial be the trial. The current approach seems to routinely result in the trial taking place about a year after the crime, which is far too long in my opinion. Set a benchmark of 2 months after charge for anything less than murder or manslaughter, and four months after charge for those two. If the police aren’t ready with their case a month after the charge they shouldn’t have charged anyone, and if the defence needs more than a month after submission of prosecution evidence then they are not doing their job properly and must accept a smaller workload, leaving the very easy cases to the newer council to cut their teeth on. However, these are just small aspects of an overall system that needs reviewing as a whole, not tickling around the edges!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Johan, I thought A1kmm’s point was that regardless of the theory, the magistrate actually ends up acting like a prosecutor. I imagine this is a real danger. Even under our system, judges can at times be observed trying to tilt the table,
Thanks for your contribution though, very helpful. Seems to me that whatever we do to overhaul the justice system ( if we ever do anything), it would be a mistake to just adopt another country’s system. Just like constitutional reform, I think we need to develop a hybrid approach that meets our specific needs.
Strings, are you suggesting that both lawyers simply exchange everything they have at the beginning? I thought that was what was supposed to happen with discovery, at least for police papers. I have heard from a lot of lawyers that getting the papers from police is a nightmare.
I like your ideas on efficient use of court rooms and time limits. I think police sometimes use a charge just for the hassle factor,in the hope they’ll get a guilty plea in the absence of evidence. A kind of conviction by attrition. I know people innocent of an offence greatly tempted to plead guilty just because of the stress and drama, and having to get off work to appear in court etc. This is especially true if they have a previous conviction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nandor,
I am not suggesting the preference of one system over the other. The accusatorial and inquisitorial systems each have a long developmental history within their respective constitutional frame works and transplaning a system willy nilly out of such a constitutional framework may have unintended and unforseen adverse consequences. Development of appropriate responses to our problems should take place within our existing system, keeping what is good and ditching what is not, otherwise we risk “throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
BTW, the inquisitirial system is only used for the more serious and high profile cases in those countries simply because of time and costs constraints. Generally an accused appears before a court in summary manner without an prior examining magistrate – similar to our own summary trials.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I absolutely disagree with GreenGeek and a his supporters on many fronts.
The introduction of a “not proven” verdict is just a copout. The reason that the idea of a not proven verdict is popular is due to trials where the wheels fall off, like the Bain trial; it doesn’t lead to good justice. Not proven is also an alternative to double jeopardy, and other poor idea.
At the end of the trial process, a person is found guilty of a crime, or not guilty. In the same way that a person convicted of murder may be called a murderer (ie a jury have found a person guilty, it doesn’t actually matter if he did it or not) a person found innocent is found not to have committed that crime, for exactly the same reasons. There is no grey area whatsoever.
In the wider context, the state hold all the cards. They decide who (if anyone) to prosecute, what to prosecute them with, and have (effectively) infinite resources to drive that prosecution. The problem is that the state are willing to prosecute cases with inadequate evidence, and “take a flier” to see if they can get a result. If the state dont want to embaress themselves, they should prosecute cases only where there actually is evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”. Thats means high 90s percent chance the jury will buy the state’s story. Estimates are that today the state will prosecute with a 50% chance of success. Thats bad, because the only possible loser in that situation is a defendent who clearly being played with by the state, with only bad outcomes possible.
Almost all defendents have nothing like the resources of the state, so the state actually doesn’t have to try very hard to get a conviction. Where the defense does have resources, then the state will often loose because the evidence didn’t actually support the charge in the first place. This is often portrayed in the media as the defendent got away with it ‘cos he had high powered lawyesrs, but that is denying they truth – that the state usually gets away with it because of the resource imbalance in their favour.
This goes to String’s point above. Time limits sound great in theory, but this allows the police to spend eight months investigating the case, charge someone, and then the accused has a mere two months before it goes to trial. So the police get ten months, and the accused two. Once again, a clear imbalance.
It is true that the concept of ‘the truth’ is a stranger to the English based legal system, but when you have the a group of organisations whose job it is to bring prosecutions and, to quote the vernacular, get “a result”, it is hardly surprising.
As is the case with democracy, the English based Law system is terrible, but all alternative systems are worse…
In the case of bain he was exceedingly lucky that someone with resorces was able to take his case on, a case that had the original verdict declared invalid by the Privvy Council, and now having been retried has been found not guilty. Thus he has every right to compensation. The crown brought this upon themselves; they could have let it go after the Privvy Council vacated the original verdict, and toughed out calls for compensation. Now, if the state actually believes in its own system it really has to compensate Bain.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dbuckley
While I do not have a problem with most of what you have said, please elaborate on:
“As is the case with democracy, the English based Law system is terrible, but all alternative systems are worse…’. There are a number of legal system, not least of which are the civil law jurisdictions that do the job just as well as the common law system.
Could you please provide real reasons for your statement, or is this just a way of saying “I like what I have because I know it and it is mine?”
I also follow your reasoning when you say: “Thus he has every right to compensation.” and “Now, if the state actually believes in its own system it really has to compensate Bain.” but this is not going to happen. He has to CLAIM for compensation in court and due to the onus of proof he has difficulty in proving wrongful prosecution – he cannot prove intent nor negligence in the decision to prosecute- the crown simply will say, based on the available evidence it was a reasonable decision to prosecute. There was forensic evidence pointing to his guilt on which the jury could have found “guilty” and this will sink any compensation claim. The Privy council made a point of stating it was not ruling on the merits of the case or the validity of the evidence that had been presented earlier but on the refusal of earlier courts to allow evidence about Robin’s mindset that could provide an alternative motive. The PC stated that even that was not for it to decide if this was a valid defence but stated that it was to be left for a later jury.
Obviously if an executive (ministerial) decision is made to compensate him it is simply an ex gratia and a moral decision and not a matter of legal principle – I am saying he will legally have difficulty in succeeding with a claim for damages due to wrongful prosecution in law. This is why his legal team is now resorting to requests for family generosity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Johan, I am of course stating my opinion on the question of the validity of legal systems, much as Churchill stated his opinion on democracy. As an example of an alternative system that most (but by no means all, and particularly in the US) consider unacceptable is the system implemented at (quick google for spelling!) Guantanamo Bay.
The mechanism by which Bain has to claim compensation is clearly flawed. This goes back to the basis that you cant really appeal a verdict per se, you can only appeal the mechanics of the trial process. Strangley enough, I support that position, you shouldn’t be able to appeal just ‘cos you dont like the verdict. But where the mechanics of the process are sucessfully appealed (as in Bain), and thus the verdict vacated (as in Bain), then it should be the case that all bets are off and we start again.
The police did nothing wrong in bringing a prosecution against Bain, but “the refusal of earlier courts to allow evidence about Robin’s mindset that could provide an alternative motive” is a mechanical failure, which is the fault of the state; it is not a victimless error.
In the wider context: if the very fact that there was inculpatory evidence invalidates a claim then the corollory of that is that there is no such legal concept as “innocent”, only varying degrees of guilt. SUrely that must be unacceptable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hello everyone, about five years ago I examined, fairly briefly, these cases- David Tamihere, Scott Watson, David Bain, Mark Lundy and Peter Ellis (this latter in more detail). I have previously written to Nandor about this matter, when he was responsible for justice matters in the Green parliamentary party. I also wrote to Phil Goff, then Minister of Justice, who ducked this issue by saying this would all be considered in future legislation. You can find this examination on my blog. “Five miscarriages of justice”
http://homepage.mac.com/j.monro/MiscarriageOfJustice/MiscarriageOfJustice.html
Recently, I believe North and South magazine carried a major article bringing doubt on the safety of the conviction of Mark Lundy. Peter Ellis’s mis-convinction was the subject of a magisterial examination by Linley Hood. David Bain has now been acquitted. The Scott Watson trial continues to be widely critiqued in all the media. Only David Tamihere languishes, no-one wants to rescue a bum, however mistreated he was. He has always maintained his innocence, and suffered long years of extra incarceration because he’s done so.
You can read my blog if you want details of my arguments. We certainly desperately need a Criminal Cases Review Authority, as they have in the UK. But much more than trying to deal with miscarriages of justice after they have occurred, it is desperately urgent to examine the whole process of justice in New Zealand, from the bottom to the top. Many good points are raised above.
The most single important measure, I believe, is to establish an independent entity, which I would like to call something rather benign, “The Courts Office”. This Office would be given the charge of dealing with criminal cases. The offices simple overriding remit would be “to find the truth of the matter, insofar as this can be ascertained”
This is part of what I wrote five years ago:
Whilst improving the system of appeal is urgently needed, for there will always be issues with court proceedings, wouldn’t it be more efficient to get the trial system fair and just from the very start. The common factors related to miscarriages of justice are well known, so why do they keep recurring? Perhaps the adversarial court system that we have needs some moderating and more particularly the role of the police in being both investigator and prosecutor needs to be changed. After all, what we are seeking above everything else, is the truth of what happened, if we can. Making sure that every high profile crime gets a conviction is not the same as getting the truth. I would suggest that an independent Courts Office be established, who will be in overall charge of the prosecution, but who will also have a statutory duty to aid the defence by making sure all matters pertaining to the case are available to them. They should also be able to help during the trial by ensuring arbitration between defence and prosecution. They will ensure that the police collect and use their evidence fairly, and should be able to direct police if they have not pursued other lines of enquiry. They should also be able to make a judgement about the admissibility or not of evidence, and aid the presiding judge if needed. The bigger the case, the more important will be their role.
Five years have gone by, I doubt I need to alter a single word, following David Bain’s acquittal, and the pardon in another notorious case which I didn’t examine, that of Rex Haig.
But none of this is new, these miscarriages of justice date all the way back to the Arthur Allan Thomas affair, now 38 years ago, and there has been no significant change to the justice system since this appalling event. There have since been many high profile cases in New Zealand just as appalling as Thomas one.. This inability of successive governments over nearly forty years to deal with this continued blight in our justice system, perhaps more accurately described as a deep-seated rottenness, is inexcusable and is, frankly, nothing less that the most despicable political cowardice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is nothing but an example of ruining the life of a comman life by the government. It has become common these days because the value of the comman man is decreasing not increasing.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I feel you have missed the point. A verdict of “not guilty” is NOT the same thing as being “found innocent” as you suggest.
The “not guilty” verdict is evidence based. It simply means “insufficient evidence”.
It definitely does not mean “absolutely no evidence”. If there was in fact no evidence, the case would not go to trial at all.
A result of “not proven” recognises that there was enough evidence to go to trial, but not enough evidence to prove the case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)