Give Bain Nothing, Ctd

Judith Collins has released the reports into the Bain Compensation Grab.

Binnie Report

Fisher Report

The summary from Robert Fisher includes:

Examples of errors contained in Mr Binnie’s report are:

  • In assessing Mr Bain’s innocence, and misconduct by authorities, Mr Binnie made fundamental errors of principle.
  • Mr Binnie disregarded any item of evidence that did not prove a subsidiary fact on the balance of probabilities, contrary to New Zealand law. This meant he excluded significant evidence such as blood stains on Mr David Bain’s clothing, the broken glasses, Mr David Bain’s fingerprints on the rifle, Mr Robin Bain’s motive and mental stability, Mr David Bain’s post-event admissions, and Mr David Bain’s admission that he heard Laniet gurgling.
  • Mr Binnie regarded the jury acquittal as something that was relevant to whether Mr Bain had proved his innocence.
  • Mr Binnie accepted Mr Bain’s version of events without question, except where it directly contradicted other witnesses.
  • Mr Binnie arrived at a provisional conclusion of innocence based on one item (luminol footprints), followed by a serial testing of that conclusion, instead of considering the cumulative effect of all evidence. This approach skewed the findings towards innocence.
  • Mr Binnie’s approach was markedly generous to Mr Bain in its reliance on background facts sourced from him.
  • Instead of requiring Mr Bain to satisfy him on the balance of probabilities, Mr Binnie imposed an onus on the Crown whenever the Crown suggested a factual possibility inconsistent with Mr Bain’s innocence.
  • Mr Binnie relied on ‘innocent openness’ defences to turn incriminating admissions or clues into points thought to support Mr Bain’s genuineness and credibility.
  • Mr Binnie went beyond his mandate. He did not have authority to conclude whether there were extraordinary circumstances, or make a recommendation on whether compensation should be paid.
  • Instead of founding conclusions on the evidence available to him, Mr Binnie drew an adverse inference to the Crown where, in Mr Binnie’s view, the Police ought to have gone further in its investigations.
  • In finding serious wrongdoing by authorities, Mr Binnie paid no regard for the need for an official admission or judicial finding of misconduct, and treated as ‘serious misconduct’ actions that were not deliberate, nor done in bad faith.
  • Mr Binnie criticised named individuals without giving them the right to respond.

Can we ask for our money back? It appears that Binnie has produced something so far outside his brief that surely there is some recourse.

Simon Power has a lot to answer for as well in appointing what is clearly an activist who produced an activist and flawed report.

As I said earlier…there was no upside politically for Judith Collins, but it appears that she has acted to do the right thing despite the ensuing acrimony that is undoubtedly on her way from the weirdos that support David Bain.

 


Do you want:

  • Ad-free access?
  • Access to our very popular daily crossword?
  • Access to daily sudoku?
  • Access to daily code cracker?
  • Access to Incite Politics magazine articles?
  • Access to podcasts?
  • Access to political polls?

Our subscribers’ financial support is the reason why we have been able to offer our latest service; Audio blogs. 

Click Here  to support us and watch the number of services grow.

61%