Report slammed for 'purely political' reasons - Binnie

Email
Print

Report slammed for 'purely political' reasons

3News NZ

Ian Binnie

Ian Binnie

The judge responsible for the David Bain compensation report that's been slammed by the Government says the issue has become purely political.

Senior Canadian judge Ian Binnie found Mr Bain was probably innocent and should receive compensation for his 13 years in prison, but the lawyer who reviewed his work says it's full of mistakes.

Justice Minister Judith Collins today released Justice Binnie's report along with its peer review, and her feelings for the Canadian couldn't be clearer.

“It is so fundamentally flawed, as to the entire basis of it, it's so outside the terms of reference, it is simply not credible,” says Ms Collins.

The former Supreme Court judge found:

“David Bain innocent on the balance of probabilities, that there were extraordinary circumstances and that meant he should receive compensation.”

It could have meant a payout for Mr Bain of an estimated $2 million for spending 13 years in jail, but Ms Collins took issue with the report and ordered Auckland judge Robert Fisher to review it.

He found:

  • Justice Binnie went beyond his mandate
  • His approach to the evidence was seriously skewed
  • He appeared to accept Mr Bain's version of events without question

Mr Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed QC, was only given the copies of both reports this afternoon, and told Radio New Zealand the entire process has been unfair on his client.

“All those reports never came to us - they only went to Fisher – it’s a one sided criticism of the case and we have had no input into Fisher. It is grossly unfair and greatly disturbing,” he said.

And even Ms Collins expressed some sympathy for his situation.

Judge Binnie - who is currently in Geneva  - did not want to be interviewed by Nightline but told 3 News he disagrees with Fisher's report and believes the issue is "purely political".

Mr Binnie's report cost the tax payer $400,000.

“I think that we may have to wave that one goodbye, unfortunately,” says Ms Collins.

A further $100,000 was spent on Mr Fishers review, and Mr Collins admitted that starting from scratch could cost another $500,000.

It’s money burned, and bridges too.

Mr Binnie sent an angry email to Ms Collins today that was full of spelling mistakes, typos and even capital letters.

But that's likely to be his last involvement in the claim, which now won't be revisited until the new year.

3 News

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

18/12/2012 6:24:49 a.m.

Just Me wrote:

I am now thinking that Judith Collins will waste more taxpayers money on another report then another report - until 10 reports later(if subsequent reports for David Bain Compensation is ruled in his favour)when she finds a report she likes.That is a report that states David Bain should not receive compensation.So whilst subsequent reports will cost the NZ taxpayer a few million if not more Judith Collins will find one reason or another not to pay out David Bain.Either that or the next judge assigned to do another report just so happens to be a staunch National Party supporter and will write the report the way Judith Collins likes it.In other words it will be her words and her opinion in the report and not the judge(s).And so I am sure she will like to read what she has written.Such is ego. Besides why did she hire an overseas judge who,she claims, knows nothing of NZ law and yet paid him almost $580,000? NZ has the reputation of being the "fastest law-maker in the West".It also easily changes laws in favour of say Hollywood movie mogul demands.Our laws are constantly changing to suit the changes and demands in the world.So for anyone to say an overseas judge has no understanding of NZ law right now doesn't hold any water for me.

16/12/2012 8:15:36 p.m.

dennis wrote:

"I haven’t actually been thrown under a bus, but there are probably some similarities" His Honour said [ thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1301544--former-canadian-judge-embroiled-in-new-zealand-wrongful-conviction-case ]

16/12/2012 12:54:02 p.m.

dennis wrote:

"There is, however, no evidence that Robin encouraged or otherwise induced the children to write these stories which could well have been prompted by movie watching" {Court of Appeal}. Which movie was that, Your Honours? "On 23 June 1994, after the killings, Mr Mackenzie visited Robin’s school: he found the classroom and office disheveled, disorganised and untidy; piles of unopened mail were on Robin’s desk. Mr Mackenzie was particularly disturbed by the writing and publication in the school newsletter of certain brutal and sadistic stories written by pupils at the Taieri School, one of them involving the serial murder of members of a family. He does not regard these as stories normal children would write unless motivated to do so. He regards Robin’s decision as principal to publish them as "unbelievable" and sees them as "the clearest possible evidence that Robin Bain had lost touch with reality due to his mental state""

16/12/2012 12:34:14 a.m.

shit a brick wrote:

David said nothing like "I killed the prick" podcast.radionz.co.nz/ckpt/ckpt-20090612-1729-Suppression_order_lifted_on_111_phone_call-048.mp3 This says to me that His Honour should be asked back to review all Mander/Collins cases, and that applies whether it was their position to include or exclude the assertion

15/12/2012 5:12:56 p.m.

dennis wrote:

"In the world of legal wrangling William Ian Corneil Binnie has just about seen it all, and as an added bonus to his credibility, he has passed judgment on most of it too. Of the 1,074 cases brought before the Supreme Court during his time, Justice Binnie had a hand in 964 of them, penning 169 lengthy opinions; figures that stack up with Canadian legal magazine ‘The Lawyers Weekly’ dubbing him: ‘A prodigious worker and prolific writer…’ who made ‘groundbreaking judgments’(October 14, 2011). His impartiality is famous, striking against the Crown when he saw them making a meal of their cases on many occasions" Fisher is not a "peer". It would be like applying for a rehearing of a Supreme Court verdict at the High Court, leap-frogging the Court of Appeal which is the next lower "peer" level

15/12/2012 9:31:15 a.m.

dennis wrote:

How independent/incestuous is it to seek advice from Bob Fisher? He was a contemporary High Court judge up until Helen Clark disapproved of his IT usage. He must surely know one, if not several, of the Court of Appeal judges who hung David Bain out to dry, where he may still be were it not for the English Law Lords. This was murder/suicide and it was wrong to destroy the Coroner's evidence. Someone needed to say that and Justice Binnie obviously felt morally obligated to do so, whether Judith Collins wanted to hear that or not. Give her another portfolio to destroy Key. She has dismantled Justice

14/12/2012 11:24:40 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Dear Justice Binnie, Would you please come back and fill-in for the Solicitor General or Chief Justice, or Justice Potter, when holidays are due?

14/12/2012 8:46:16 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Tova wrote: "Robert Fisher QC’s review of the report also found Mr Binnie relied too heavily on Mr Bain's own testimony" Justice Binnie said: "Mr Fisher complains that I "relied heavily upon information sourced from David". This is true, so did the police and the Crown Law Office. He was the only source of much of the information relied upon by both sides. I therefore had to decide whether, on the whole, I believed him or not. That was part of my mandate"

14/12/2012 4:47:18 p.m.

dennis wrote:

Justice Binnie's off-the cuff 21 paragraph rebuttal of Mr Fisher's $100000 critique is very good. He is very thorough and yet is so quick at ripping away the rotten wood, catching the red herrings and spotting dress-ups. This gentleman is a real judge

14/12/2012 8:58:19 a.m.

nigel wrote:

I took the time to read some of the Fisher report. His argument about probabilities and how they relate to deductive reasoning goes like this. If you have a bloke walking past a house that has been burgled he probably didn't burgle it, but if you see him running away with burglary tools and the stolen goods are found at his house then on the balance of probabilities he is probably the burglar, so far so good. By adding the evidence together like strands in a rope the rope becomes stronger as does the likelihood of guilt and one piece of evidence cannot discount the whole because it is only one strand in the rope. Nonsense Fisher, what if the actual burglar had worn a mask implicating the person whose house he shared. The mask represents one strand in the rope yet unravels the whole. A better analogy would be a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. It is a logical fallacy to transpose mathematical probability theory applicable to the tossing of die, with human actions in microcosm. Binnie found the weakest link in the chain, the luminol footprints and like the mask he felt that factor alone put paid to the rest of the evidence against Bain. One can disagree with Binnie but not fault his logical process. As an aside if anyone wants me to write a report I'm an unbelievable bargain at 2000 dollars a day. I can knock out a report on any subject you want and it will hold its own amongst the best of them.