I am just pleased it is all finally over after so many years.

Pumpedd:

 

I am just pleased it is all finally over after so many years.

 

Hopefully, he said today that he is innocent, they got to wrong so thats all I have to say on the matter. Sound stop me that is the end of it, rather than more news articles over what they can do.

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.

 

You are wrong, the law DID find him guilty which is why he spent time in prison.

He is not on trial for the crime any more and the onus is for him to prove he was innocent in order to receive compo.

dickytim:

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.

You are wrong, the law DID find him guilty which is why he spent time in prison.

He is not on trial for the crime any more and the onus is for him to prove he was innocent in order to receive compo.

Blackstone's formulation.  Note that those who've expressed alternate views include Pol Pot and Cheney.

There's too much political involvement in NZ with awarding compensation in such cases.  That's unsafe IMO.

sen8or:

 

Being not convicted on the basis of a technical error in the way evidence was collected or treated is different "IN MY OPINION" than being not guilty. 

 

There's no such thing as "getting off on a technical error".

The whole point of the law is to make decisions. As far as possible, those decisions should be just and correct. But decisions *must* be made.

Legally, evidence is either collected properly or it is *not* evidence. Whether evidence was collected properly is also a *legal* decision.

A legal system that embraces concepts such as 'not quite innocent' or 'not quite guilty', which is what we have here, is an ad hoc absurdity. This whole process has been derided as incompetent from the beginning and nothing that has just happened changes that.

tdgeek:

 

So he got no compo. As this whole affair was full of holes, police bad conduct and so on, it is tainted. So he got a payment that I heard was for expenses over the period. Legal I assume. 

 

Remember that Legal Aid is a *loan* which can be reclaimed by the Govt if you come into cash. So, for example, they may take a lien on your house when you get Legal Aid.

So, assuming Bain's legal expenses were over $925K, the money "paid to Bain" could in reality just go back to the Govt as a repayment to the Legal Aid fund. No actual compensation at all, unless... the Govt decides not to reclaim its Legal Aid loan to Bain. I wonder what the position on that is?

Rikkitic:

A legal system that embraces concepts such as 'not quite innocent' or 'not quite guilty', which is what we have here, is an ad hoc absurdity. This whole process has been derided as incompetent from the beginning and nothing that has just happened changes that.

 

MikeB4:

Who was incompetent and on what factors is that view formed?

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/309985/bain-payment-'pragmatism-over-principle'
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310014/compensation-overhaul-needed-act

Rikkitic:

 

A legal system that embraces concepts such as 'not quite innocent' or 'not quite guilty', which is what we have here, is an ad hoc absurdity. This whole process has been derided as incompetent from the beginning and nothing that has just happened changes that.

 

 

 

Thats wrong, he is not guilty, thats the legal systems ruling, end of story, over, fineto.

This thread is about compensation. To get compensation, which is not a legal system issue, he has to prove his innocence, that is the criteria. He hasn't so he gets zero compensation.

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

Who was incompetent and on what factors is that view formed?

 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/309985/bain-payment-'pragmatism-over-principle'
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310014/compensation-overhaul-needed-act

 

 

 

News journo's who wont let it go, thats all. Compo criteria is quite clear, you get compo because you were wrongly jailed as your conviction is now known to be incorrect. I.e. you are KNOWN to be innocent.

The ex gratia payment is stated as due to the expenses and time the end ruling has taken.

Radio NZ, let it go

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

Who was incompetent and on what factors is that view formed?

 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/309985/bain-payment-'pragmatism-over-principle'
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310014/compensation-overhaul-needed-act

 

 

 

 

News journo's who wont let it go, thats all. Compo criteria is quite clear, you get compo because you were wrongly jailed as your conviction is now known to be incorrect. I.e. you are KNOWN to be innocent.

 

The ex gratia payment is stated as due to the expenses and time the end ruling has taken.

 

Radio NZ, let it go

 

 

 

I have seen many different articles from many different sources in the same vein in recent years. These just happen to be two of the most recent, for which the links are easily available. If I felt like searching, which I don't, I'm sure I could easily find many more.

Rikkitic:

 

tdgeek:

 

Rikkitic:

 

MikeB4:

Who was incompetent and on what factors is that view formed?

 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/309985/bain-payment-'pragmatism-over-principle'
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/310014/compensation-overhaul-needed-act

 

 

 

 

News journo's who wont let it go, thats all. Compo criteria is quite clear, you get compo because you were wrongly jailed as your conviction is now known to be incorrect. I.e. you are KNOWN to be innocent.

 

The ex gratia payment is stated as due to the expenses and time the end ruling has taken.

 

Radio NZ, let it go

 

 

 

 

I have seen many different articles from many different sources in the same vein in recent years. These just happen to be two of the most recent, for which the links are easily available. If I felt like searching, which I don't, I'm sure I could easily find many more.

 

 

 

Im not in favour of compensating people who may in fact have commited the crime. I will compensate those who have not commited the crime and who I know are innocent

This one seems a reasonably balanced summary of the the Callinan decision:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/82734851/callinan-report-highlights-issues-in-david-bains-innocence-appeal

There's some valid points underlying that decision that he can't prove innocence.  Although they don't change (or try to) the fact that the prosecution couldn't convince a jury of guilt beyong reasonable doubt.  Two different burdens of proof, in two separate processes.