Attempt to halt David Bain re-trial fails

[Newtown-Fella]

what an absolute waste of tax payers dollars ....

David Bain will stand trial for the murder of five of his family members in Dunedin in 1994.

Bain's lawyers had been awaiting a decision on an application for a stay of proceedings, following a hearing in the High Court at Christchurch.

But this afternoon the High Court dismissed the application and jury selection for the retrial is set for March 6.

Bain's lawyers are in the Supreme Court today appealing a separate court decision.

The appeal relates to a High Court decision on the admissibility of evidence. Today's arguments are expected to be suppressed.

Meanwhile, Arthur Allan Thomas, who was wrongly convicted for the 1970s killings of a Waikato farming couple, has arrived in Christchurch to support Bain.

Mr Thomas, 71, was twice wrongly convicted for the murders of Harvey and Jeanette Crewe and spent nearly 10 years in jail. He was pardoned in 1979.

Mr Thomas told the The Press he contacted Bain after the Privy Council quashed Bain's convictions.

Mr Thomas said he had "concerns" about the jury selection process.

There have been calls for rarely used pre-trial examinations of jurors to sort out those who have prior knowledge of the case.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10559570

[Magoo]

I agree.. a waste of tax payer money.    This has been done to death and I have doubts that it would be possible to get an unbiased jury.     

[guest49]

Of course its a waste of time.  He's already served the jail-time, whats the point of another trial?
How the hell can witnesses remember their evidence after all this time?  Are all the witnesses still alive even?

[Calliope]

I guess he just wants to clear his name.

Although the privy Council quashed the initial verdict it didn't, it didn't rule him not guilty

[bump head benny]

Your guess may be off a tad, Im guessing the cops just want to hammer him this time coz they reckon he got away with murder the first time?

[guest49]

Your guess may be off a tad, Im guessing the cops just want to hammer him this time coz they reckon he got away with murder the first time?

Huh?
I'm going to have to sit down and puzzle that one out!

Police were quite happy they had the guilty man in each of the many court appearances and appeals.  I guess they still are.
The privy council made no finding as to guilt or innocence - just that there is some evidence that should be put before a jury.  They didnt even say the evidence was significant, just that it should be shown.

I said above that its a waste of time.
As was said on another board, pay him a couple of million dollars now to save time, and can the court appearance.  The saving of no court time should balance any payout.

[bump head benny]

Puzzle what out? it was the prosecutors who pushed for this retrial not Bain, the crown has millions to spend on their case, Bains got whatevers left of his payout (minus lawyers costs)
 

[Ferney]

Bains lawyers went to the Privy Council.   They disagreed with the Privy Councils decision for a retrial as it wasn't the decision they wanted.     I agree with the re-trial going ahead. 

[Kiwithrottlejockey]

As I don't agree with the re-trial going ahead, can I calculate the estimated waste of public money cost of the re-trial to the Crown, divide that figure by the number of taxpayers in NZ, then deduct that amount from my annual tax total? Can every other taxpayer who doesn't agree with the re-trial going ahead do likewise?

[Newtown-Fella]

On Thursday, May 10, 2007 the Privy Council quashed David Bain's murder convictions, concluding that "a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bain

[Ferney]

NT.  You left off the end of the sentence................and recommended a retrial.   

[Newtown-Fella]

yep and it was only a recommendation....

the then govt didnt want to have to make a millin dollar payment so would have brought pressure on the Solicitor General to all he could to organise a retrial...

t will be interesting to see th eoutcome of this new trial and what the jury comes up with....

read this from wiki as well...

Privy Council findings
   It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article. (Discuss)

The emergence of much new evidence after the trial led to the later appeals and the eventual overturn of Bain's convictions, pending a retrial. Nine of the most important items were reviewed in the Privy Council findings:

    1. Robin Bain's mental state

        The jury did not know that he was "quite seriously disturbed", had reportedly hit a student at the school where he was principal, and had published brutal and sadistic children's stories in the school's newsletter, one of which involved the serial murder of members of a family.[6]

    2. Motive

        Laniet had apparently told a friend just before the killings that she was planning to confront her parents that weekend about an incestuous relationship between her and her father Robin, but the trial judge had ruled the friend's evidence inadmissible because he saw it as unreliable. The jury therefore never heard about this possible motive for Robin.[7] (The exclusion of this evidence was the principal question in the first appeal.)[8] Since then, two other people had come forward stating that Laniet had told them about the incest, and another two had given supporting statements.[9]

    3. Size of bloody sock prints

        Prints from a right sock impregnated with blood were detected using luminol in Margaret's room, going in and out of Laniet's room, and in the hallway outside Margaret's room. They all seemed to be from the same foot, measured at 280 mm in length. These were in places where Robin would not have gone under the Crown's theory of events. It was accepted during the trial that the prints were David's, and the prosecutor summed up saying they were too big to be Robin's. The jury were not told Robin's feet were measured to be 270 mm in length. Later measurements showed David's feet to be 300 mm in length. According to the Privy Council report, the new evidence "throws real doubt" on the assumption during the trial that the prints could not have been Robin's.[10]

    4. Time the computer was switched on

        The jury was told and later reminded by the judge that the computer was turned on at precisely 6:44 am, just after David had returned home. However the exact time was not precisely recorded. A computer advisor employed by the University of Otago determined the time that the computer was switched by identifying how long it had been going, and what the current time of day was. However he was not wearing a watch himself and relied on the watch of an accompanying constable, DC Anderson. The constable's watch had no seconds hand and only five minute interval divisions, and later upon examination appeared to be two minutes fast. During the Privy Council appeal both sides agreed that the computer could have been turned on as early as 6:39:49 am.[11]

    5. Time David returned home

        Someone was seen by a passing motorist entering the gate at 65 Every St at 6:45 am. The reliability of this time was left more doubtful than necessary in the minds of the jury, because they were not told that the police had checked the car's clock. Nor were they (or the defence) told of a second statement made by the motorist, in which she mentioned that she saw the yellow paper bag over his left shoulder. After retiring, the jury asked to read the motorist's statement, regarding when David arrived home; the judge then re-read her (first) statement.[12]

    6. Ownership of glasses

        The jury heard a statement from an optometrist that glasses found in David's room were David's, conflicting with David's testimony that they were his mother's. David was then cross-examined about this in a way that raised doubt over his credibility. The optometrist had in fact changed his mind shortly before testifying, and believed his statement had been changed to say they were the mother's, but this had not happened. The jury asked a question about this issue after retiring, and were reminded of the conflicting testimony by the judge. The Privy Council concluded that while the ownership of the glasses was not a vital matter in itself, the conflicting evidence may have detracted from David's credibility in the eyes of the jury.[13]

    7. Left-hand lens

        The left-hand lens of these glasses was found in Stephen's room. During the trial, Detective Weir testified that it was found there in the open. This was more consistent with the Crown's case that it become dislodged during the struggle there than what is now accepted, that it was found under a skate boot under a jacket, and was covered in dust. This may have misled the jury.[14]

    8. David's bloody fingerprints on rifle

        David's fingerprints were found on the rifle, impressed there by bloody fingers. During the trial it was assumed that this was human blood. (Other blood on the rifle was definitely human.) A test of the fingerprint blood afterwards did not test positive for human DNA, and the prints may have resulted from possum or rabbit shooting months beforehand.[15]

    9. Laniet's gurgling noise

        The jury was told that only the murderer could have heard Laniet gurgling. The second Court of Appeal heard some contradictory evidence and concluded it was not so clear-cut. The third Court of Appeal decided that it was, but was criticised by the Privy Council for having stepped outside its reviewing role here.[16]

The Privy Council ruled that the third Court of Appeal had exceeded its role as a reviewing body in deciding the implications of all this new evidence. The Council also addressed three points which the third Court of Appeal had relied on in confirming David's guilt:

   1. Knowledge of spare key to rifle[17]
   2. Bloody rifle clearer around David's fingerprints[18]
   3. Spare magazine standing upright[19]

They found that the implications of the first point were contentious, while the other two should have been decided by a jury instead of an appellate court. They felt they did not need to consider in detail several other contentious points that the third appeal court saw as pointing towards David's guilt, including blood on David’s opera gloves, Stephen’s blood being found on David’s black shorts, the timing of the washing machine cycle, David’s head injuries, and Robin’s full bladder.[20]