Friday, 22 June 2007

Justice seen to be done

Excellent decision to retry David Bain. Justice to those five people who were brutally murdered would not be served in any other way.

And I support the idea of showing the trial on live TV so we at least have the opportunity of seeing justice done, even if most of us won't be able to watch every minute as it happens -- with TV On Demand, if we're of a mind to, we'll be able to catch up on the internet with whatever we missed .

Which suggests something: Given one of the important principles of justice is that it should not only be be done but be seen to be done, why not put all trials on the net, leaving each session archived for perhaps a week or more?

That would help open up the justice system, wouldn't it?


  1. Whatever the truth, to me the real travesty of justice is that the trial will not be held until NEXT YEAR!!!

    We're not even half way through this one. The glacial pace of justice in this country is criminal.

  2. What makes you do sure he did it?

  3. PC said...
    That would help open up the justice system, wouldn't it?

    No, it would finally proven once and for all that hearsay evidence such as put forward by Joe Karam is no reliable compared to physical tangible evidence (crime-print) that all pointed to David. The justice system handed David the correct punishment, and it would be the same again in the second trial next year.

    Hearsay evidence is more like calling a psychic to testify in court on behalf of the defense. But as PC always say in this blog site, the faculty of human knowledge must integrate together. Psychic or hearsay evidence don't integrate well with the Physics (physical evidence from the crime scene, such as David's fingerprint on the gun, the fibre found under Stephen's fingernail which came from David's Jersey, unexplain scratch marks on David's body & face where none found on Robin's body , blood prints found in the laundry room, blah, blah, blah).

  4. A few important points.

    1/. Bain will be found guilty (whether he did it is not the issue here). The establishment can't let him escape with a "not guilty" verdict. Were this to happen it would expose systematic incompetance and dishonesty on the part of the NZ justice system, the prosecution and the Police witnesses. That will not be allowed to happen again (ref. the Thomas case where the evidence was planted and the jury tampered). Expect to see the man convicted and do not be surprised when the jury is very carefully "selected". One should consider the jury lists questionable right from the start.

    2/. The judges in the Court of Appeal whose opinions were found to be so wanting by the Privy Council must resign. They are not to ever be trusted again. They did not do their job but allowed an institution bias to direct their judgement. No member of the NZ public can have confidence in such people. They are biassed and incompetant. Basic errors of the nature of theirs do not lead to confidence in the courts. They remove the requirement for people to respect such institutions. Justice must be seen to be done. On this issue these judges failed to act properly. They were too keen to preserve the statuts quo. To avoid the courts becoming merely another dependant organ of govt largess and appointment (nothing more than a tool of policy) those judges should be sacked if they do not voluntarily retire.

    BTW this is a serious danger in small hicksville countries such as NZ. The pool of legal talent is small. The judicial establishment is tiny and the good jobs... well if you want a career to go well there is much pressure to conform...

    3/. The Police Officer who failed to reveal to the Court that his watch was two minutes in error should be "resigned". By withholding evidence he has committed a crime. He, as a sworn serving officer and as a sworn witness, must tell "the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth." He didn't... He said, "it's not my job." He can't be trusted and must go.

    4/. The Helen Clarke and Maggie (legless) Wilson experiments with the justice system should be immediately undone. Similarly ALL juduicial appointments made during the term of the present govt regime should be most carefully reviewed.

    As for Bain, let him stand or fall on the evidence, not on the quality of media hype or emotional blubbering.

    Simple stuff.



  5. Wasn't Bain's response odd: he was "annoyed".

    Hardly the utterance of somebody desperate to clear their name, one would have thought.

    I think it is highly unlikely a jury will fail to find him guilty. Finding an uncontaminated jury will be hard work, though.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.