Review prompted by concerns with Bain report

Justice Minister Judith Collins says concerns with the report into David Bain’s claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment by former Canadian judge, Justice Ian Binnie show peer review is needed.

“After reviewing the report prepared by Justice Binnie in September, I was concerned with some aspects of it. With the consent of the Attorney-General, I received advice from the Solicitor-General on the report. Following this advice, I decided the report should be peer reviewed. I commissioned Hon Robert Fisher, QC to do this.

“My concerns are broadly that the report appeared to contain assumptions based on incorrect facts, and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. It lacked a robustness of reasoning used to justify its conclusions.

“This was not a decision I made lightly, but one that was absolutely necessary. Put simply, it would not be acceptable to make a recommendation to Cabinet based on a report that would not withstand the considerable scrutiny it would attract.

“I am very disappointed this peer review is needed – I think we would all agree that a timely conclusion to this matter would be best for everyone. But justice must be done – a robust and proper process is the only way to ensure a certain and final conclusion to Mr Bain’s claim.

“When the Secretary for Justice and I met with Justice Binnie in September, I made it clear to Justice Binnie there were concerns with the report he provided, and it would be peer reviewed.

“I also advised Justice Binnie the report must remain confidential and it would be premature to release it until after Cabinet had made a decision on Mr Bain’s claim.
“Since then, I have received from Justice Binnie, unsolicited, two further versions of his report.

“I will receive Mr Fisher’s peer review in the next day or so, which will be forwarded to Justice Binnie for his comment. When I hear back from Justice Binnie, I will take a recommendation to Cabinet on the next steps.

“Ultimately, this review will not have an impact on Mr Bain’s claim, apart from causing an unfortunate delay to the decision Cabinet will make,” Ms Collins said. . .

This is indeed unfortunate.

The retrial found Bain not guilty. That is not the same as saying he is innocent but it does mean the jury could not say, beyond reasonable doubt, he was the murderer.

The review is adding time and cost to an already lengthy and expensive process, but if there are concerns about the initial report, peer review is required.

2 Responses to Review prompted by concerns with Bain report

  1. inventory2 says:

    Judith Collins is absolutely right to have this report reviewed if she believes that Justice Binnie made errors in fact and in law. To simply accept an incorrect report would be an injustice.


  2. Andrei says:

    In the old days we would have hanged the bugger and the whole thing would be ancient history, long forgotten but in these enlightened times it has become a gravy train for lawyers and an opportunity for political posturing.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: