The justice system is the best means humans have produced to determine the guilt or otherwise of someone accused of a crime – and it’s a whole lot better the a medieval ordeal by fire.
The role of a court hearing held within the justice system is to decide on a defendant’s guilt.
A court hearing reviewing a previous court hearing -- carried out as a properly constituted part of the process of the NZ justice system – overturned previous court hearings and found David Bain not guilty of the murder of his family and released him.
Whatever you or I or the justice minister feel about that decision, the properly constituted court found him not guilty, and had him released.
Seems to me now that there are only two responsible choices for the new minister considering compensation for what the judicial system determined was Bain’s wrongful imprisonment.
She should either accept the decision of the justice system, which is what the justice system is for, and compensate him.
Or, she should openly declare that the court’s decision is so unsafe it is prima facie evidence the justice system is broken.
Those are the only two possible responsible actions. Either compensate the man, or accept the system is so lack-lustre that the decisions of its courts can no longer be trusted.
Shopping around again for yet another extra-judicial legal opinion however, in the hope that this time the opinion might agree with the minister’s, suggests even the minister knows the justice system is broken but is too dishonest to admit it openly.
Which just brings the NZ injustice system –and the irresponsible ministers who have made it that -- into further disrepute.
3 comments:
PC. the system is so lack-lustre that the decisions of its courts can no longer be trusted.
and
the court’s decision is so unsafe it is prima facie evidence the justice system is broken.
David Bain murdered his family
"The properly constituted court found him not guilty, and had him released"
He was due to be released anyway. It equates to around 2.5 years per family member he killed. The dickhead got off lightly and should refrain from asking taxpayers for money. He doesn't even have the balls to speak for himself, getting Karam to do it all for him.
The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond reasonable doubt", in a civil case it's "on balance of probabilities". We can rightfully conclude that Bayne probably is guilty (and therefore not entitled to compensation), whilst at the same time recognising that there's an element of doubt that means he should no longer be incarcerated.
Post a Comment