Is this excessive use of taxpayer money?

3 replies [Last post]
Kent Parker
Offline
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
Is this excessive use of taxpayer money?

It has been recently found that Karam claimed 2045 hours at $95 an hour for a period of 13 months or so as a legal executive through legal aid services in his preparation for the David Bain retrial.  There are two controversial issues here:

  1. How on earth does our legal aid system justify paying a legally unqualified person such an hourly rate for so many hours a week for such a length of time?
  2. How can Karam claim to have credibly worked for the 35 or so hours a week during that period and how many forensic experts did he approach during that time who were not able to produce the results that he desired from the evidence that is available from the Bain case?  It is well known that Karam neglected to pick up a report from an armourer in Victoria, Australia who produced a report from the evidence that it would have been impossible for Robin Bain to have committed suicide based on the evidence.

 

Mike Stockdale
Offline
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Legal aid

http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/5161229/Lawyers-split-on-legal-aid-loss

There is quite a bit of discussion going on about legal aid at the moment.Costs are spiralling out of control.

But the Legal Services Agency treated the Bain retrial as a one-off.Probably shouldn't have,but there you are.

It would certainly be interesting to know what it was that police armourer found that led him to believe that Robin Bain could not have committed suicide.I wonder if there is any way we can find out?

GoldnKiwi
Offline
Joined: 19 Jun 2011
QC review regarding armourer report

In the event of the QC reviewing the case, for the compensation bid, I was wondering if they are confined to reviewing only the 'evidence' accepted by the court, albeit disallowed due to it being too 'prejudicial', it would be great if it could be inquisitorial and that the QC could access all reports that are known to exist.  Then the QC could do a bit of fishing, it would seem logical that if a question re the evidence is raised, that is not explainable by the transcripts, that the answers may be sought. But then this is the law, not necessarily logic.

Kent Parker
Offline
Joined: 24 Jul 2009
I understand that the QC is

I understand that the QC is not bound by anything, and we at counterspin have supplied the Crown with another witness who arrived after the end of the retrial and whose testimony will be taken into consideration as well.  Essentially it is inquisitorial I guess.