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

Networkn
32184 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114252 23-Aug-2014 22:25

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.

Wise

Send money globally for less with Wise - one free transfer up to NZ$900 (affiliate link).

Dratsab

3946 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114256 23-Aug-2014 22:30

Good example here of a wrongful conviction. Compensation can be gained but innocence needs to be proven. In the example given, innocence was quite clear but the Justice Minister of the time, who's now received convictions himself (and is finding the boot placed extremely firmly on the other foot) refused to accept the clarity of what was before him and (IMO) quite wrongfully denied compensation. It took almost four further years of fighting for compensation to eventually be paid out.

networkn

Networkn
32184 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114268 23-Aug-2014 22:40

Dratsab: Good example here of a wrongful conviction. Compensation can be gained but innocence needs to be proven. In the example given, innocence was quite clear but the Justice Minister of the time, who's now received convictions himself (and is finding the boot placed extremely firmly on the other foot) refused to accept the clarity of what was before him and (IMO) quite wrongfully denied compensation. It took almost four further years of fighting for compensation to eventually be paid out.

So that person DID get compensation then? I bet it also covered the time they spent battling which is unfortunate, however justice has been served.

bigal_nz

635 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1114382 24-Aug-2014 07:37

nickb800: It might not be automatic and formulaic, but there are cabinet guidelines and it does happen. If you are thinking about the example that I think you are thinking about, then that is an excellent example of why the process isn't automatic - there is often a chasm between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and innocent without reasonable doubt

My thought's exactly (in bold).

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1114392 24-Aug-2014 08:23

bigal_nz:
nickb800: It might not be automatic and formulaic, but there are cabinet guidelines and it does happen. If you are thinking about the example that I think you are thinking about, then that is an excellent example of why the process isn't automatic - there is often a chasm between guilty beyond reasonable doubt and innocent without reasonable doubt

My thought's exactly (in bold).

My thoughts on that is that there's a process with a binary result - you're found guilty or not guilty. Being found not guilty in a retrial - after being found guilty in the first trial doesn't - and damned well shouldn't - place the accused in some kind of twilight zone between guilty and innocent.
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.
The present system for compensation also places a burden on the Minister to decide. It's inconceivable that they wouldn't be swayed by their personal views, by public opinion - and consequently by political expediency. That is fundamentally wrong.

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114393 24-Aug-2014 08:29

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.

networkn

Networkn
32184 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114408 24-Aug-2014 09:17

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.

scuwp

3873 posts

Uber Geek

#1114440 24-Aug-2014 10:13

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 believe 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.

Exactly this.

Convictions or dismissals can often come down to who plays the game best (and lets face it for lawyers it is a game otherwise we would not have an adversarial justice system). Technicalities get people off all the time, and I would protest vehemently for someone to get automatic compensation unless it can be demonstrated 'on the balance of probabilities' that there was some grave injustice done to them.

What I know of the current system it seems to work well.

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

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114443 24-Aug-2014 10:19

scuwp:
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 believe 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.

Exactly this.

Convictions or dismissals can often come down to who plays the game best (and lets face it for lawyers it is a game otherwise we would not have an adversarial justice system). Technicalities get people off all the time, and I would protest vehemently for someone to get automatic compensation unless it can be demonstrated 'on the balance of probabilities' that there was some grave injustice done to them.

What I know of the current system it seems to work well.

Yes but how is being imprisoned wrongfully - as decided by a court of justice - not a 'grave injustice'?

Geektastic

17927 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1114445 24-Aug-2014 10:23

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?

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114450 24-Aug-2014 10:39

Do you have an example of this gross injustice where no compensation was given?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1114451 24-Aug-2014 10:45

SpookyAwol: Do you have an example of this gross injustice where no compensation was given?

David Bains acquittal was March 2009, it is now August 2014 and no compensation has been paid or even certain it will ever be paid.

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114453 24-Aug-2014 10:48

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

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1114456 24-Aug-2014 10:51

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

SpookyAwol

626 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1114457 24-Aug-2014 10:52

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?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6