Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?

Forums › Off topic › Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114458 24-Aug-2014 10:53

KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?

you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent

Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114460 24-Aug-2014 10:56

SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?

you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent

Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples

I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

It merely seems a curious blip in the normal 'fairness' we hear so much about.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1114461 24-Aug-2014 10:57

SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?

you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent

Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples

There is bound to be more a recall a rape case in Auckland where the guy was released after a few years innocent but cannot remember details. I am sure some of our member that are from the law profession will know of examples.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1114462 24-Aug-2014 10:59

Geektastic:
SpookyAwol:
KiwiNZ:
SpookyAwol: That one has been explained already, or are we purely focusing on that one example?

you asked for an example, that is one that is very relevent

Im just wondering if that is the ONLY example - the OP seems to think its a major problem. Thats why I query for other examples

I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

It merely seems a curious blip in the normal 'fairness' we hear so much about.

It should not need to go to the Minister where political a decision is made, the Courts or the Justice Department should be able to approve compensation.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114463 24-Aug-2014 10:59

SpookyAwol:

And if a court of law finds someone not guilty (either at trial or later on appeal, releasing them), on what basis can those of us not present decide that the court was just wrong and we should therefore ignore what it said?

Im not sure what you are getting at here. Just because an individual who wasnt there disagrees, we should ignore the whole Court system?

No. I am getting at comments that more or less say 'because he/she got off on a technicality but there is no shining angel proclaiming innocence by Heavenly Writ we should not have to pay compensation'

My point was that if a court finds that a person should not have been in jail because there was doubt of the security of that conviction, that person ought to be entitled to compensation whether we, the press or the cabinet think that person was guilty.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114467 24-Aug-2014 11:12

I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

Well you kind of need to. You are debating that an issue exists. The only current example of Bain is not a good one.

There may be some cases that others can present, but generally the media will only talk about high profile cases and other deals will be done behind closed doors.
If compensation is given, then its often not disclosed for privacy reasons.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114468 24-Aug-2014 11:15

There is bound to be more a recall a rape case in Auckland where the guy was released after a few years innocent but cannot remember details. I am sure some of our member that are from the law profession will know of examples.

Teina Pora?

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

plod

272 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114469 24-Aug-2014 11:19

Geektastic:
networkn:
Geektastic:
networkn:
TimA:
Zippity: Any examples in mind?
David Bain?

HAHA, well the issue there is his was not found to be innocent, it was simply that after they suppressed some of the evidence at the first trial, they didn't have enough to convict him. This does NOT make him innocent.

I do believe however that if you were TRULY innocent of the crimes you were imprisoned for, you would be compensated for, in NZ, regardless of legislation.

Well, to be more accurate, you MIGHT be compensated if the government of the day felt like it.

It seems fundamentally wrong that the State can deprive someone of liberty, family life and their career and get off scot free.

To take your example above, if we assume the evidence suppressed was suppressed because it was found to be inadmissible and to have been presented in court in error, we can reasonably extrapolate that the conviction may well not have occurred. The individual would have been found not guilty and released. He would have had his liberty, family life and career, even if we/the Press felt 'he still done it guv'.

There appears to be a mismatch between compensation rules and the standard of proof in court - if you get found not guilty in court even though circumstantially it appears you did it, you're free to resume your life - if you get convicted then freed later but there is murkiness as in this example, you get nothing, despite the fact that the same murkiness may have allowed you to be found not guilty had it occurred at the time of the trial.

Yah I can *sort* of see what you are saying, but as someone stated above, there is a world of difference between NOT Guilty because of a lack of evidence, and Innocent. I believe the first occurred, and he was found guilty the first time around, so as far as I am concerned at best it's one result each way, so he is out and free, but he served time for being found guilty. As I understand it, some of the evidence which was pretty damning was omitted due to minor technical issues of which there is still dispute over the courts ruling on. A lot of legal professionals believe had that evidence been
presented, he would be back in prison now. In this case, I don't believe he would be due compensation.

If however, evidence came to light to prove him categorically innocent, I would without a shadow of a doubt, be 100% behind a generous compensation package for him.

I do not beleive for one cold second in hell, that someone who commits a crime, gets away with it due to a tecnicality should be due compensation for spending time in prison for having committed said crime.

But how is it fair that a person who 'gets away with it due to a technicality' in court and never goes to prison is effectively better off than the same person who does 20 years before the court arrives at that conclusion and thus loses any ability to have a family, earn a living etc which the other guy does get?

And if a court of law finds someone not guilty (either at trial or later on appeal, releasing them), on what basis can those of us not present decide that the court was just wrong and we should therefore ignore what it said?

i would rather someone guilty walk free on a technicality or lack of evidence then see 1 innocent person falsely imprisoned. As far as I'm conceded there is no amount of compensation that can make up for an innocent person being jailed, although I'm sure it would help

sleemanj

1490 posts

Uber Geek

#1114488 24-Aug-2014 11:40

The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114500 24-Aug-2014 12:14

Fred99: If prosecution evidence is disallowed in a second trial resulting in acquittal -then there's a good reason for that - there are rules in place - and if the prosecution is caught breaking those rules, and that stuffs up their case with the result that a "guilty" person goes free, then that's just a price of justice - and a better result than giving the police and prosecutors so much slack that they can make up the rules (and in some cases evidence) on the fly any time they like.

Not sure what 'rules' you are referring to here, Court procedure is very well established. Evidence is usually suppressed because it's deemed too prejudicial or unfairly (which can be unlawfully) obtained, not because it or 'the rules' are made up.

Edit: expansion of original sentence.

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114502 24-Aug-2014 12:26

sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

scuwp

3886 posts

Uber Geek

#1114568 24-Aug-2014 14:49

http://www.justice.govt.nz/services/miscarriages-of-justice/Process%20for%20determining%20eligibility%20and%20quantum%20of%20compensation.pdf

And a couple of examples ex. Google.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10719399
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/1750606/Rex-Haig-denied-compensation

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114765 24-Aug-2014 20:07

SpookyAwol:
I don't make a point of debating the size of the problem.

Well you kind of need to. You are debating that an issue exists. The only current example of Bain is not a good one. There may be some cases that others can present, but generally the media will only talk about high profile cases and other deals will be done behind closed doors.
If compensation is given, then its often not disclosed for privacy reasons.

Why? A problem can exist in absentio an extant example of it in practice. It's called theory!

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114767 24-Aug-2014 20:15

networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

networkn

Networkn
32358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114771 24-Aug-2014 20:23

Geektastic:
networkn:
sleemanj: The trouble is that the population at large has the (not quite, but almost universal) misguided opinion "if the police arrest them, they MUST be guilty", doesn't matter what the outcome of a trial, let alone an appeal, doesn't matter the evidence or lack thereof, to the population at large, once you've been arrested, you are guilty, and guilty people don't get paid out.

Politicians know this, they know that if they pay out somebody who was incorrectly detained, that large swathes of the VOTING public will be incensed that this obviously guilty person (because they were arrested, let alone tried for the crime) has received a payment, which they will perceive as coming from their tax dollars.

So the answer to the question "Why is there no right to compensation for wrongful imprisonment in NZ?" is, in my humble opinion, "because the unwashed masses are by and large one step away from forming a vigilante mob with torches and pitchforks based on no more than somebody being arrested".

This might be the case in the people you mix with, but I've never heard of anything like that in my 35+ years. Most (I say this having not once found an exception) people would be more than happy for genuinely innocent people to be compensated for being wrongly imprisoned. I can't imagine much worse than having it happen to me for sure.

I do however firmly believe that those who spend time in prison for a crime they DO commit, and get off on a technicality, should get nothing (except their freedom), and I've found the VAST majority of people feel this way too.

I would say that I would view someone arrested (and charged) for a crime, to be reasonably likely to be guilty of said crime, as an initial impression.

However, it is pretty rare for someone to do what you suggest, because the only certain way would be if they actually admitted the crime, in which case it's unlikely in the extreme a 'technicality' would serve to get them off.

In the case of Mr Bain which has been offered as an example here by others, I am fairly sure he has never done anything but deny responsibility from day one. I would agree he might have committed an offence against public decency with regard to knitted wearing apparel however....

Fortunately, how you or anyone else chooses to view a suspect's arrest and charge with regard to guilt or otherwise is not how the legal system works - otherwise we really will be heading back to pitchfork-toting mobs!

Well I guess I am talking about someone who gets their conviction overturned as a result of a thing like incorrect chain of evidence or something like that. The evidence shows they did commit the crime, categorically, but it can't be presented at trial due to a breach of the rules.
Whilst I am not happy they are out, it falls into the way that the rules work, and I am prepared to accept it, however to then turn around and give that person money as compensation for spending time in prison, I'm afraid you'd never convince me that is the right thing to do.

I will be very unhappy indeed if Bain gets compensated (As I believe he falls into the above category), however, we are a socialist country and will likely give him something I believe.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6