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
1769 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 895


  Reply # 1603241 2-Aug-2016 21:52
Send private message

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


13173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2355

Trusted

  Reply # 1603260 2-Aug-2016 22:21
Send private message

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.


2484 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 535
Inactive user


  Reply # 1603283 3-Aug-2016 06:26
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.

 

 

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.


12841 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6064

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1603295 3-Aug-2016 07:42
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.



You need to do some reading, the Privy Council voided the earlier conviction due to a miscarriage of justice, he was released on bail and a retrial conducted. He was aquitted of all convictions and released.




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.

 

 


7146 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3736


  Reply # 1603308 3-Aug-2016 08:27
Send private message

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.


2417 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1181

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603315 3-Aug-2016 08:44
One person supports this post
Send private message

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.

 

 


Glurp
7967 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3707

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603317 3-Aug-2016 08:52
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


2417 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1181

Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1603319 3-Aug-2016 08:54
Send private message

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?

 

 


12841 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6064

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1603325 3-Aug-2016 09:00
Send private message

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.


 



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




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.

 

 


Glurp
7967 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3707

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603326 3-Aug-2016 09:07
Send private message

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

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


13173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2355

Trusted

  Reply # 1603335 3-Aug-2016 09:17
Send private message

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.


13173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2355

Trusted

  Reply # 1603338 3-Aug-2016 09:20
Send private message

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

 

 


Glurp
7967 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3707

Subscriber

  Reply # 1603359 3-Aug-2016 09:43
Send private message

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.

 

 





I reject your reality and substitute my own. - Adam Savage
 


13173 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2355

Trusted

  Reply # 1603366 3-Aug-2016 09:50
Send private message

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


272 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 20


  Reply # 1603369 3-Aug-2016 09:56
Send private message

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.


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.