Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It still seems a a paradox to me that the defence was able to introduce some pretty tenuous stuff to depict a propensity to murder on Robin's part -- the school essays, the bookmark in a book in the caravan -- but something similar, and arguably more compelling, was ruled out as prejudicial with respect to David. I understand why -- Robin was not the defendant -- but it is a paradox.
I understand people's discomfort with the propensity rules, but another way of looking at the matter is that the Crown has unlimited resources with which to pursue someone. In most cases the defendant's resources are minimal. And in most cases that go to trial the defendant loses.
So anything that gives the defendant the chance to say "it wasn't me" is surely a good thing.
Remember also that the judge always has the power to disallow evidence if it has no relevance.
-
I only expect an answer from a lawyer or from Russell.
I'll have a go. [disclaimer: I'm not a media lawyer]
It appears there is still a suppression order in place relating to certain information.
Thus, it appears the Herald has made a colossal error.
I doubt anyone is going to come chasing after people on this site when they clearly were just responding to something that was in the public domain. As to whether anyone is technically in breach in the absence of a deliberate intent to defy a court order, I dunno. If I didn't have a day job I could spend time researching the matter.
But Russell, you should probably take down anything that refers to that content of that Herald story until it's clear exacly what the suppression order relates to. Unless you've had advice from a media lawyer.
-
Does anyone know why the Herald story about the suppressed evidence has disappeared? I can't find it on the Herald site and the link Russell provided yesterday has been disabled.
I also heard that action has been taken against the Sunday TV show over the Bain case, to prevent them airing a story.
But I can't find any word of anything on any of the news sites.
Has the story been shut down?
-
I made that comment with sarcasm.
Oh. Sorry. My sarcasm detector doesn't work on the Lord's Day.
-
The comparison with OJ is very interesting.
The differences are striking, however.
The Bain case screamed "Reasonable Doubt" from the beginning. Any other verdict would have been inconceivable. The defence rebutted every key piece of evidence the Crown put forward. I'm not saying Bain didn't do it (only Bain truly knows), but I don't see how any of us can judge him. The jury at least had the benefit of hearing all the evidence, and not through the lense of the news media. And they weren't convinced of his guilt.
Hands up who wants to give David Bain a filthy glance next time they see him on the street.
I don't expect to see him on the street. Thanks to comments like that Bain will probably spend the next few years afraid to walk the streets.
Hand up those who were on the jury and heard all the evidence, and are qualified to pronounce as to Bain's guilt or innocence.
-
This sort of stuff was OK for the trial though...
Yes, but that's a different issue. The rules about prior convictions and acts are there to protect the accused from being unfairly prejudiced.
Bain's defence team was entitled to produce evidence to show someone else might have committed the crime.
-
George, the jury is asked to decide on the facts of the case, so a person's past acts are usually regarded as irrelevant. A jury may be swayed by a person's past conduct, even if the facts of the case may not themselves support a conviction.
This is why prior convictions or actions are usually not admitted in evidence.
Take the example of a prior conviction. If police could say "he's done it before," would the jury look as critically at the facts? In many cases they might just decide "he's got past form, so he must have done it this time."
That said, in some cases past actions are relevant if they show a pattern or proclivity. I don't know the details of the suppressed evidence, so can't comment on the Bain case and what arguments might have been raised.
-
It's really quite creepy. But can one of the lawyers explain tome when evidence stops being evidence as to the character of the accused, and starts being "prejudicial"? I'm not clear on this.
It's been many years since I did Criminal Law at University, but I'll have a go.
Under section 43 of the Evidence Act 2006, evidence of a propensity (REDACTED ON LEGAL ADVICE) will only be admissible if the evidence has a probative value which outweighs the risk that the evidence may have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the defendant.
In other words, if the evidence is potentially weak but could be explosive, it may be ruled inadmissible. I assume that was the case here.
-
I was never absolutely convinced of Bain's guilt. I thought the evidence against him was strong, but that there were also matters the Crown could not explain.
The jury were there and heard all the evidence, so I'm going to trust their judgment on this one.
Whether or not you believe he's gulty, he's had 13 years behind bars. He probably won't get compo, so those years are lost to him.
He's been found not guilty, and we should respect that and let him get on with his life.
-
You have to be mildly amazed at the way National has got the "attack the messenger" spin working though. Not just through the National Internet PR Department but actually out into the MSM as well.
And yet none of the usual suspects at Kiwiblog will answer the most basic question: why didn't Key ask to see the evidence?
This crisis could have been averted as soon as Key had been told of the allegations. He should have stood Worth down pending an investigation. Instead he's gone from one extreme (doing nothing) to the other (sacking him before all the facts are in).
David's post has nailed it for me. Key's rudderless and is making it up as he goes along. Is Key the sort of person to lead us out of a recession?