Sunday, June 30, 2013

Can the Minister of Justice be trusted.

Just when there are calls from within Government ranks for David Bain to drop his Judicial Review of what he sees as the mishandling of his application for compensation for 13 years of wrongful imprisonment the New Zealand Herald reveals details that pole vault the possibility of claims of 'mishandling' to political persecution.

Most readers are aware that Judith Collins, The Minister of Justice, and aspirant Prime Minister sought a 'peer review' of a report written by Justice Binnie recommending David Bain for compensation, what the public didn't know was that the Minister along with help from her advisors 'reviewed' the report before commissioning a 'Peer Review' by Robert Fisher QC, a man who faced a situation, of his own making, from which he felt the need to resign as a Judge. Not by any standard could it be said that Robert Fisher was qualified or capable to review the findings of an International Juror. Frankly his expertise isn't to that level even on a professional level because few Lawyers would agree to undertake a 'directed' review of another Lawyer in secret. Certainly the 'review' was directed by Collins of that there is no doubt, she didn't hand Robert Fisher QC, a simple directive, she listed at least 34 'concerns' that her hatchet crew had compiled.

I doubt another New Zealand Judge, or ex Judge could be found to review the professional judgement of a Jurist, in secret, and to a 'design' formulated by a politician. That is possibly why Robert Fisher is no longer a Judge, poor judgement, a mercenary approach to personal gain at the expense of others. Also included in the Herald report by David Fisher was the news that Collins distributed 30 copies of the report but none to David Bain or his lawyers. The only conclusion is that the 'report' only went to the hands of those sympathetic to Collin's view and whom there was confidence that they would work toward denying David Bain his lawful rights. A lot of people understand and support open Justice, the right for an accused to know who is accuser is and what they are saying. In the Bain case Collins has become the accuser and the architect of a framework to treat Bain, and his application for compensation, illegally.

Collins when compiling her own report was critical of Justice Binnie, not even bothering to show the impartiality of her office, she  said he had 'descended in the arena.' A description most aptly applied to herself. In recent days the 3 Degrees show has revealed the work of a Waikato business man David Giles who 'discovered' what not other person had been able to do for 19 years, the strong likelihood that Robin Bain's body had being photographed with gunshot residue on his hands consummate with loading and firing of the murder weapon contemporary with the deaths of his family. A day later 3 Degrees were being blasted for failing to have police involved, when in fact they had. They were criticised by Martin Van Beynan from The Press for only giving the 'story' to media friendly toward the Bain team, in other words suggestions were made of bias.

Who is Van Beynan? He is the man who persecuted another wrongfully convicted man Peter Ellis for a crime that was never committed. He is the brother of a senior police officer, a fact he is not known to me, to have revealed when attacking David Bain from the lofty position of claiming to have sat through almost the entire trial, one person of course of scores that sat through the trial.  He is someone who was warned by police to stop harassing a Bain juror and who, despite his vast 'knowledge' of the case never revealed to the public that Robin Bain's dna was found in the barrel of the rifle in such a manner that pointed to a high probability of suicide. It seems clear that Van Beynan was able to benefit from some of those 'loose' copies from the Minister's Office because the day the Minister was finally pressured to make the report public he already had a 'scoop' on it's contents. So exactly what Van Beynan accused 3 Degrees of he had done himself. Some readers will be aware that the 'news paper' The Truth also had an exclusive scoop on the story supplied 'after hours' by the Minister's office after a request under the Official Information Act and in record time. There is only one hand that steered the release of the material and it is the same hand that has denied David Bain natural justice.

As the Minister nears the hearing of Judicial Review in the Auckland High Court it seems that news arrives daily of what has gone on behind the scenes, the Minister has waged a campaign against Bain supported by a 'friendly press,' by a friendly ex Judge and by officials who most likely had no choice and who will hardly be helpful witnesses to any claims by The Minister that she had not in fact persecuted David Bain by plotting against him. I once asked the question as to whether the Minister was a hate-siter, at the time it was a flippant remark although it might not be now.

One of the hate-sites has a copy of fingerprints of David Bain taken in the police station but which they say were taken from the murder weapon, how ever that has happened, thanks to the Herald article, the public now knows that information has been past about secretly, some of it intended to be  leaked to the public misinforming them as to the truth. As always with the Bain case 'mistakes' by the Crown have always impacted negatively on David Bain. Clearly some in authority treat his as an 'enemy' among that number is the 'impartial' Minister of Justice. In this Minister can we trust, doesn't look like it.

8 comments:

  1. A disturbing thing about the reaction to the 3rd Degree program by Government, Van Beynen and Police is the harmony of their response.

    The Police come out and disparage the pathologist (Dempster) by implying he didn't do his job properly, and the program makers by plaintively complaining that they had been left out. They then throw around words like 'expert' to support a claim that the marks on the thumb were cuts. But they didn't *show* whether those marks lined up with the marks on the thumbprint, they just stated that they were cuts. They left themselves an out by saying that they were going to look into it; but, like the Fisher report, the result of the investigation is decided before the investigation takes place.

    Then Van Beynen toes the blue line with his attack on 3rd Degree and implicitly on Karam, by claiming that Melanie Reid was taken in. He parrots the police line on the marks being cuts (disregarding the forensic photographer's examination), and concludes by parroting the other police line about the preponderance of evidence being against David. Predictable.

    And this morning in the Herald, 'Senior government sources' are saying that "I find it hard to believe the prosecution didn't see that" and "...if you read Binnie's report there is actually nothing in it that points to David not doing it". Well, if that's a senior government source, heaven help us all because the lunatics have taken over the asylum. Meanwhile Collins doesn't comment because she's overseas, and Keys does his usual gauche evasion.

    This smacks of deliberate strategy. The strategy appears to be: redefine the marks on the thumb, rubbish the experts, protect the boys, focus on the (fictional) 'mountain of evidence' against David, swing the media back to the 'guilty' view and delay, delay, delay so that we have time to work out what we do and hopefully make sure this doesn't impact on the election.

    NONE of this is about truth or justice. David Fisher's revelations in the Herald makes that much very obvious.

    The Police rejected the findings of the Royal Commission on Thomas. So did the then Solicitor-General. Presumably, therefore, as far as the Police and Crown Law go, Thomas is still considered the murderer of the Crewes. Bush's statement (as police representative) at Hutton's funeral show a sick and disturbing inability to acknowledge imperfection in the Force.

    When will they learn that perfection is not required nor possible, and that it's the putting right that counts? Until they do, we have a Police and justice system deeply caught in noble cause corruption - and however noble the cause, it's corruption just the same.

    This is no longer about Bain. This is about all of us and the system we allow. The Police must not be allowed to be an unquestioned authority supported unquestioningly by the government.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a harmony of response. A response that insults common sense. The Minister is out of touch, thinks she is selling soiled goods to the unwary - more fool her.

      Delete
  2. Surprise, surprise
    The marks on Robins hands are 'cuts' 'injuries' or as MVB suggests 'marks from a guitar'
    Really the fools are clutching at straws trying to fob this of as 'injuries', but not that suprising given the crown cuckoo stance of the crown and there desperation for Robin to be 'innocent'. Its absolutely amazing the lengths that they will fight the failed case and nothing short of a joke. It will be interesting to hear what the likes of Dr Dempster would say about it, but he has so far not said anything publicly, also what further gun experts say about it. We shall see

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Dr Dempster, as a contracted expert witness for the Crown, is not able to make any public statements. I could be wrong, but it would be most irregular if he did.

      Delete
    2. I haven't read VB's latest hopeful explanation but I gather he thinks daddy was strumming up a tune, maybe it was 'Hang down your head Tom Dooley.'

      Delete
    3. The Minister is taking advantage of that, instead has Burgess commenting without saying anything of any importance.

      Delete
  3. Beyond
    Am more referring to probable further examination of the thumb impressions by crown experts in which case we may get a view from Dempster, you are correct in that he probably wouldn't comment publicly otherwise

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see JFRB are making a complaint to the BSA, what a laugh!
    Will be another achievement to add to their failed campaign

    ReplyDelete