Bain Compensation Denied

Forums › Off topic › Bain Compensation Denied

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1602987 2-Aug-2016 14:47

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2541559/reports-on-david-bain's-compensation-bid

I can't help but think what Sir Geoffrey Palmer said over 3.5 years ago thoroughly captured the utter hopelessness of this whole process.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1602988 2-Aug-2016 14:49

sir1963:

nathan: He hasn't been found innocent. This sets a terrible precedent.

He was not found guilty either.

Our laws are meant to be Innocent until proven Guilty, not the other way around.

I dont care how anyone feels, what they believe, the fact remains the law has failed to prove guilt and has taken away 14 years of someones life. If this finding had been made right at the beginning then those 14 years would have been vastly different/better, that is what the compensation is for.

No, they failed to prove him guilty the SECOND time, so he hasn't spent any more time in prison than he should have.

jim.cox

224 posts

Master Geek

#1602994 2-Aug-2016 14:53

He's happy enough to claim his innocence now

So how come he wasn't prepared to give evidence at either trial?

=mjc=
.

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1602995 2-Aug-2016 14:55

networkn:

I understand why these rules apply, but for my money is he guilty because if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been allowed a retrial in the first place, and if he had, it would have been guilty a second time.

Pure speculation. I'll claim that if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been found guilty in the first place.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1602998 2-Aug-2016 14:56

frankv:

networkn:

I understand why these rules apply, but for my money is he guilty because if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been allowed a retrial in the first place, and if he had, it would have been guilty a second time.

Pure speculation. I'll claim that if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been found guilty in the first place.

Huh?

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1603000 2-Aug-2016 15:01

jim.cox:

He's happy enough to claim his innocence now

So how come he wasn't prepared to give evidence at either trial?

Novel concept to you: people are entitled to not testify. Our laws, to which you and every citizen of this land are bound by, says no adverse inference may be drawn against an accused for this. This also happens to be the rule of law in about most civilised countries.

And to people on both sides arguing about what the Privy Council's decision on ordering a re-trial for Bain actually said, a tiny piece of advice from a lawyer: the best (and only) way to work it out is by reading the actual decision (technically called "advice"): http://www.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/nz/cases/NZPC/2007/1.html?query=bain

frankv

5680 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1603005 2-Aug-2016 15:01

jim.cox:

So how come he wasn't prepared to give evidence at either trial?

You can't read anything into that.

If he (a naive teenager who had been living in a dysfunctional family and suffered a major trauma) had given evidence, I expect the prosecution would have carved him up. So I expect his lawyer quite rightly advised him not to.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1603006 2-Aug-2016 15:03

frankv:

jim.cox:

So how come he wasn't prepared to give evidence at either trial?

You can't read anything into that.

If he (a naive teenager who had been living in a dysfunctional family and suffered a major trauma) had given evidence, I expect the prosecution would have carved him up. So I expect his lawyer quite rightly advised him not to.

Now who's speculating? It's as likely he was guilty, they interviewed him, realized he was going to give the game away and told him not to do it.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1603008 2-Aug-2016 15:06

networkn:

Now who's speculating? It's as likely he was guilty, they interviewed him, realized he was going to give the game away and told him not to do it.

Sorry to break it to you, as somebody who knows much more about these issues than you do, frankv is right. Any competent lawyer (and for the umpteenth time I have actually prosecuted and defended) would have advised David Bain not to testify, as it his right. And the jury would have been instructed to draw no adverse inferences based on that.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1603009 2-Aug-2016 15:06

frankv:

networkn:

I understand why these rules apply, but for my money is he guilty because if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been allowed a retrial in the first place, and if he had, it would have been guilty a second time.

Pure speculation. I'll claim that if the evidence HAD been collected properly, he wouldn't have been found guilty in the first place.

That makes no sense. Absence of the evidence prevented him being found guilty a SECOND time, but it was presented and he was found guilty the first time. If it had been collected properly, there would have been no second trial in the first place.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1603011 2-Aug-2016 15:09

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

Now who's speculating? It's as likely he was guilty, they interviewed him, realized he was going to give the game away and told him not to do it.

Sorry to break it to you, as somebody who knows much more about these issues than you do, frankv is right. Any competent lawyer (and for the umpteenth time I have actually prosecuted and defended) would have advised David Bain not to testify, as it his right. And the jury would have been instructed to draw no adverse inferences based on that.

Yes, yes, we get it, you are an all-knowing lawyer! Maybe add it to your tagline, not everyone knows by now apparently!

You haven't said anything that refutes the possibility, or likelihood that he was guilty and that he was likely to incriminate himself, and THAT was why he was advised not to testify.

The reason he didn't testify isn't clear, and so your claim is as speculative as mine!

I am perfectly aware he is entitled NOT to testify.

dejadeadnz

2394 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1603013 2-Aug-2016 15:10

networkn:

That makes no sense. Absence of the evidence prevented him being found guilty a SECOND time, but it was presented and he was found guilty the first time. If it had been collected properly, there would have been no second trial in the first place.

Pure speculation again. The jury in the first trial could have (now I don't know for sure -- neither do you -- because nobody is supposed to know what goes on inside jury deliberations) simply made inferences that were not supported by facts. It is entirely possible that even if all evidence were correctly gathered and presented according to the rules of criminal evidence, another properly directed jury could have returned a not guilty verdict the first time around. Guys, please stop with all the endless uninformed commentaries.

networkn

Networkn
32349 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1603014 2-Aug-2016 15:12

dejadeadnz:

networkn:

That makes no sense. Absence of the evidence prevented him being found guilty a SECOND time, but it was presented and he was found guilty the first time. If it had been collected properly, there would have been no second trial in the first place.

Pure speculation again. The jury in the first trial could have (now I don't know for sure -- neither do you -- because nobody is supposed to know what goes on inside jury deliberations) simply made inferences that were not supported by facts. It is entirely possible that even if all evidence were correctly gathered and presented according to the rules of criminal evidence, another properly directed jury could have returned a not guilty verdict the first time around. Guys, please stop with all the endless uninformed commentaries.

Why is it you are allowed to speculate, but us mere mortals are not?

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1603017 2-Aug-2016 15:15

networkn:

sir1963:

nathan: He hasn't been found innocent. This sets a terrible precedent.

He was not found guilty either.

Our laws are meant to be Innocent until proven Guilty, not the other way around.

I dont care how anyone feels, what they believe, the fact remains the law has failed to prove guilt and has taken away 14 years of someones life. If this finding had been made right at the beginning then those 14 years would have been vastly different/better, that is what the compensation is for.

No, they failed to prove him guilty the SECOND time, so he hasn't spent any more time in prison than he should have.

You can not be tried for the same crime twice. So in the end he was found not guilty, therefore any time spent in prison was wrong.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1603023 2-Aug-2016 15:21

I feel a Law professional is best placed to comment on this episode.

My personal feelings are that the book should now be closed and all concerned and the NZ public should move on.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7