Joe Karam has failed in his bid to secure a compensation payment for David Bain from the New Zealand Justice Department. This was brought about unsurprisingly by his complete failure to supply any convincing evidential information to Justice Callinan, “the person given the job of deciding if David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities”. In his reports found HERE Judge Callinan said [Quote] I have to say that I have had the impression from time to time during my work that the Applicant's representatives may not have fully appreciated that they do not establish the Applicant's innocence of the crimes merely by raising a number of doubts or even plausible possibilities. Nor does multiplication of doubts or plausible possibilities necessarily produce probability. [End Quote]
After David Bains acquittal in 2009 a very experienced compensation lawyer Stewart Greives QC had some pointed advice for Bain in relation to his compensation bid, Mr Grieve’s advice HERE to the man acquitted of his family’s murder was “Take your freedom, and run”. This advice of course was given because Grieve’s view was that any competent judge who looked at the evidence in the Bain case would never find that David Bain was innocent on the balance of probabilities; Grieve was of course proven right.
The conclusion reached by Judge Callinan is hardly surprising in my view because by my reckoning there have now been approximately 10 or so judges that have looked at the evidence in the Bain case and have found that there certainly is ample evidence against David Bain, ie 3 judges on the court of appeal in 1995 said there was enough evidence against Bain as to not warrant a retrial, in 1996 the Privy Council said the same thing, and in 2000 Sir Thomas Thorp, a retired High Court judge said in his report that David Bains conviction was safe, then in 2003 another 3 judges on the court of appeal also were satisfied with the evidence against Bain, even in 2007 the Privy Council only granted a retrial for Bain as there was still a case to answer, then in 2012 a judge by the name of Ian Binnie basically said that there was no evidence against David and that he was innocent on the balance of probabilities, this very odd and contradicting conclusion was said by judge Robert fisher QC to be reached by Binnie without proper consideration of the evidence, and now finally after another 2 years it’s all over with judge Callinans finding that David Bain is not innocent on the balance of probabilities.
I am sure the Bain case will be talked about for many years to come, it’s a tragic case, there were five people that died. I personally don’t believe the case is particularly complicated and I believe if one studies the evidence found HERE and elsewhere with an open mind you will discover who murdered the 5 members of the Bain family, but please don’t just consider the evidence against David Bain, one also needs to consider the complete lack of “any” evidence whatsoever connecting Robin Bain to any of the 4 completely separate murder scenes of his three children and wife.
The Applicant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that he did not kill his siblings and parents on the morning of the 20th of June 1994.
I D F CALLINAN
24 December 2015
Having published a book on the Bain killings I consider myself to be pretty well informed, having read all the reports relating to the killings including the trial and retrial transcripts. I have very little doubt in my mind as to who the perpetrator was and that it wasn't Robin Bain.
I won't say I am 100% sure because I wasn't at 65 Every Street on the 20th June 1994 , but all the evidence points to David Bain as being the killer.
I consider the not guilty verdict at David Bain's retrial to be one of the worst miscarriages of justice that has ever occurred in New Zealand.
Canadian Justice Binnie's report contained so many errors and incorrect assumptions that the Minister of justice at the time, Judith Collins , had no option but to reject it. It was not a case of the goverment "shopping around" as many have suggested, including some uninformed news reporters.
Callinan has seen through all the smoke and mirrors. He has seen through all the best attempts by David Bain's defence team to try and create reasonable doubt. He does not believe Robin Bain "changed his clothes to meet his maker".
The only thing that disappoints me now is that the Government has seen fit to award David Bain and his lawyers a $925000 ex gratia payment so as to shut them up. I don't believe they needed to do that. Bain's team had received no legal aid since the retrial.
If they had continued to argue the case they would have to have done it pro bono. Certainly the government would have had to pay lawyers to refute those arguments but how much would that have really cost? More than $925000? I wonder.
It appears that the reason for the payout was that the issue would not be hanging around for the election next year.
Well of course Amy Adams made the point that the reason for the payout was because Bain's defence team had told her they were not going to accept Callinan's conclusion which would have meant the saga would continue on for ever and a day. So she told them the government would make and ex gratia payment of $925000 so long as they [David Bain] agreed that would be the end of the matter.
I doubt next years elections would have been a factor. I think the worm has turned and that if no payment had been made and were a poll to be taken tomorrow the majority would vote for no compensation.