Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
1277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 975

Subscriber

  Reply # 1602987 2-Aug-2016 14:47
Send private message

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.

 

 

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1602988 2-Aug-2016 14:49
Send private message

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. 


194 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 10


  Reply # 1602994 2-Aug-2016 14:53
Send private message

 

 

He's happy enough to claim his innocence now

 

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

 

 


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1602995 2-Aug-2016 14:55
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1602998 2-Aug-2016 14:56
Send private message

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?

 

 


1277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 975

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603000 2-Aug-2016 15:01
Send private message

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


2459 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1205

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603005 2-Aug-2016 15:01
Send private message

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.

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603006 2-Aug-2016 15:03
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.


1277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 975

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603008 2-Aug-2016 15:06
3 people support this post
Send private message

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.

 

 

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603009 2-Aug-2016 15:06
Send private message

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. 

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603011 2-Aug-2016 15:09
Send private message

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.


1277 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 975

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603013 2-Aug-2016 15:10
Send private message

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.

 

 

 

 




18324 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5250

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603014 2-Aug-2016 15:12
Send private message

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?


803 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 357


  Reply # 1603017 2-Aug-2016 15:15
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.


13150 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6171

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1603023 2-Aug-2016 15:21
2 people support this post
Send private message

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.





Mike
Retired IT Manager. 
The views stated in my posts are my personal views and not that of any other organisation.

 

 Mac user, Windows curser, Chrome OS desired.

 

The great divide is the lies from both sides.

 

 


1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.