Yeah, I thought it would come to this.
Judith Collins (pic: Glenn Taylor NZ Herald)
Bain takes High Court action against Collins – NZ Herald
David Bain has filed a High Court claim against Justice Minister Judith Collins seeking a judicial review of her actions since she received the Justice Binnie report last August.
The claim includes allegations Ms Collins has breached Mr Bain’s rights to natural justice and his rights under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, acted in bad faith, abused her power, and acted in a biased, unreasonable and predetermined manner. …
Read on at NZHerald.co.nz
It is my personal view that Mrs Collins has demeaned herself, her office and NZ’s international reputation by her actions in this matter, however well-intentioned. As I said earlier, I regret reaching that conclusion.
But there it is.
– P
I don’t see how ‘natural justice’ would be served by David Bain receiving compensation for murdering his family. Compensation can only be paid if he is proved to be innocent and he hasn’t been. The Herald also reports how Justice Binnie reached his conclusion:
“Justice Binnie was sent Mr Guest’s email by Mrs Collins’ office. He replied saying Mr Guest should ‘check with his former client’ because his email ‘is based on the false premise that David Bain has waived solicitor-client privilege’. He said the issue was largely irrelevant because there was no evidence showing Mr Bain was wearing the glasses at the time of the murders.”
Oh, really? So why were the glasses that David admitted he was wearing the night before found broken on the chair beside him next morning with the missing lens in Stephen’s bedroom, where Stephen had put up a fight for his life? How on earth can Justice Binnie find that ‘irrelevant’?
Well hells bells – why not just put bain on trial again … thats essentially what you are proposing.
Why have a justice ‘system’
When there are five dead people, some clumsy investigation and an interminably long court process, it takes a long time for the truth to come out but I still prefer justice to injustice. Since there will be no more trials, Ivan, why don’t you defend the glasses?
Thats a terribly passe and low class throw away line type response … whose justice … your particular brand … or some as yet undefined brand of same – you prefer justice to injustice … one can only hope none of us ever ends up being served that type of ‘justice’
Wonder how you would feel after 13 years … ‘defend the glasses’ … jesus h christ … sit on yourself and rotate and enjoy the experience perhaps …
Justice that slowly becomes clear to everyone through actually considering evidence. Can you give an plausible explanation for the glasses?
I rest my case … i hope you dont often do jury service Graeme … i will recognise you in the white cape and hood and perhaps personalised burning cross.
Not that im suggesting narrowness of mind … just fundamental orifice perhaps.
Ivan, you’re supposed to present a case BEFORE you rest it:-)
While clearly I don’t speak for the Bain campaign, my impression is the alleged breaches of natural justice they accuse Mrs Collins of relate to her handling of the Binnie report once she received it.
Passing the Binnie report on to Crown Law Office (the prosecution) and the Police for comment, undertaking a secret ‘peer review’, trashing the report and its writer (a respected former Supreme Court Judge chosen by the government) publicly — all before giving access to the report to the Bain side, let alone releasing it.
Because of the judicial review, Mrs Collins will now get a chance to justify her actions in that regard and, perhaps, explain the extraordinary process she was following … which, from the outside, does not appear even-handed.
– P
Yes, I agree the process is flawed and the delays are appalling (justice delayed is justice denied) but, welcome to our justice system where this is, sadly, the norm. Worse, no one in it seems to want to clean it up, perhaps because that’s how they earn more.
I watched this this morning. Whatever one thinks of Joe Karam and the Bain case in general, it seems to me he makes some good points about the process …
http://www.3news.co.nz/Karam-Govt-using-Bain-as-a-pawn/tabid/309/articleID/285046/Default.aspx
Joe makes, and has made for many years now, some great points about flaws in our justice system. He and I have talked and agree re our laws of evidence. However, as he rightly says, Judith Collins as Minister is only allowed to compensate if David is innocent. If she sees from the error in Justice Binnie’s reasoning that David must be guilty, as identified above, she can’t compensate him. Hence, the latest review. Joe also sees here he can’t see any flaws in Justice Binnie’s conclusion so I’d love to hear his answer when it’s pointed out to him.
What on earth – gods good earth – are you actually saying here …
You are expressing some fairly strange logic … or so it seems …
Jots and tittles … but mostly its always about the tittles …
Can you identify the ‘strange logic’, Ivan? I’m simply saying that our legal system does not depend on innocence but being proven guilty. However, compensation does require proof of innocence.
All i can say – is read what you’ve written .. again. Also read again what you’ve written in your most recent response.
Are you serious.
If you are – and indeed if you are correct … well … i wonder
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10862535