I wouldn’t whine if millions of dollars were at stake

via Newstalk ZB

via Newstalk ZB

Mr Reed, who acts as David Cullen Bain’s lawyer thinks it is a good strategy to whine and moan about the location of the judicial review now that it has been shifted from Auckland to Wellington.

Of course, Bain can’t pay his legal team, so they’re whining that they’ll have to take the extra expenses on the chin.  Suddenly all that glorious “free advertising”  legal work is going to cost them real time and money.

So like the small minded and short sighted idiots that they are, they decided to whine about it.

The Crown is “acting vindictively” in its bid to shift David Bain’s case against Justice Minister Judith Collins to Wellington, a court has heard.

Lawyers for Mr Bain and the Crown were back at the High Court at Auckland today where Mr Bain is seeking a judicial review into how Ms Collins handled a report into his claim for compensation written by former Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie.

“The report was received, it was kept secret, a spurious basis of confidentiality was put forward and it was handed to the police,” Mr Reed told the court.

He said Mr Bain was asking that his case against Mrs Collins be heard in Auckland.

Mr Reed said Mr Bain did not have legal aid, had a “modest job” in Christchurch and could not afford to take legal action against the Crown.

“We are close to – if not already – at the stage where we are being forced out of this case.”

Boo effin hoo.

I wonder how many fellow lawyers would be cringing at this pathetic whining coming from the Bain defence team.

He said applying for legal aid was so time consuming that it was not worthwhile.

Mr Reed said while Mr Bain would find it difficult to fight his case in Wellington, the Crown were able to fly an experienced QC up to Auckland to argue that a two-day hearing be held in Wellington.

“The Crown appears to be acting vindictively,” Mr Reed said.

He said if the Crown agreed to hear the case in Auckland, they would only face the extra cost of one night’s accommodation.

“I haven’t seen any bit of evidence as to why they want the case in Wellington. Why is it?”

He said because Justice Binnie interviewed Mr Bain in Auckland, Auckland was the proper place to hear the case.

Oh hand me the tissues will you?  Legal aid is too expensive to apply for?  Do they even think this through before it comes out of their stupid faces?

Mrs Collins’ lawyer Kristy McDonald QC said Mr Bain was asking for special treatment.

She said Mr Bain’s claims are in relation to Mrs Collins and her job as a Cabinet Minister and therefore should be heard in the capital.

“Despite the high profile of this case, generally, Mr Bain is not special … There are many parties who are poor. Mr Bain has chosen to bring a judicial review.

Bain lives in Christchurch, but it is somehow less onerous to him to to have the case heard in Auckland than in Wellington.

 

Source: ODT

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • cows4me

    Welcome to the free world Mr Bain, where of course nothing is free. I would have thought with his time in prison he would have learnt that the lawyers always win. He really should be grateful that he has escaped by the skin of his teeth and the public sympathy’s he has enjoyed could quickly turn into a short lived spectacle.

    • Justsayn

      A one eye spectacle?

  • tarkwin

    Dork.

  • New Zealanders are oddball people at times – they think Bain is guilty but Arthur Thomas innocent; they think a high dollar makes you poorer and a low dollar richer; they think renting houses to solo mothers and students makes you rich and exporting is for mugs.
    So funny.

    • LesleyNZ

      I don’t think we really know who is guilty or innocent in the Arthur Thomas case. The jury is still out on this one with me.

      • Justsayn

        Agree, and despite what the media have been trumpeting lately I haven’t heard any evidence that the cop who just passed away planted the shell case. Thomas would be well to take the win the political process gave him and forget the loss the Court process dealt to him.

        Please don’t take this as a chance to say the Royal Comm said so, I know that, but what evidence did they have to base that opinion on? I’m actually interested so if there is a good reference source (not a Karam book please) that you and direct me to then please post a link.

        • parorchestia

          “The Press” articles by Martin van Beynan are the best – this is the link I think: the article in The Press but take a look at this book, The Case of the Missing Bloodstain.

    • parorchestia

      There was good physical evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thomas was innocent and the police had planted the evidence. The investigations of the Bain case were a mess, much of which was not due to the Police’s fault and most of which was due to the attempt by person or persons “unnamed” trying to cast blame on the father. (Try shooting yourself with that rifle so the bullet enters the head at the angle it did, and yet not leave any fingerprints!).
      And Bain should have been required to take the stand if he ran the defence of impugning another person. – that should be law. And the size of the sock prints which was held to be critical evidence is easily explained. And the time on the computer would have been easily changed.

      • Sponge

        “There was good physical evidence that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Thomas was innocent and the police had planted the evidence.”

        No – You are joining two different issues into one. While there was evidence the Police planted the shell case this does not make Thomas innocent of the murder. I know a cop who worked on this case and his absolute belief was that there was no doubt whatsoever that Thomas was guilty. His belief was that the senior Police involved were not able to find the definitive piece of evidence to prove it. Thus they planted the shell to fit their case. I have never heard anything that proved Thomas innocent “beyond a shadow of a doubt”.

        As for Bain – give him nothing.

        • parorchestia

          I quote:

          “..a feature of the story is the impact supplied by a single 42 year old photograph that not a single lawyer, judge, expert witness or scientist noticed during any of the eight High Court, Court of Appeal or Royal Commission hearings noticed was the photograph of a fake. One enlightened glance at this photograph condemns the guilty policemen and clears Arthur Allan Thomas for all time.” in The Case of the Missing Bloodstain.

          What do you think of this – had a look at the book?

          • Sponge

            No I have not read this one. I will though.

            The problem with a book like this (and with Karams books as well) is that the authors approach their investigation with their own views and mindset and the proceed to find evidence to fit those views – rather like the Police I suppose in the Thomas case.

          • parorchestia

            You are right – it’s target fixation.

  • Phar Lap

    He should have gone on the stand at his last trial,he would have got a lot more respect.We all could have gauged if he was telling the truth.Still cant workout if his daddy was a contortionist,the way he had to twist his body to shoot the **** out of himself.

  • LesleyNZ

    You mean the lawyers and Joe Karam want the case heard in Auckland. Bain lives in Christchurch and wants the case in Auckland? Crazy. Commonsense says it should be in Wellington. Mr Reed is a bit of a drama “queen”. He should do some acting on the side and make some money for the Bain case. He is very, very good. Is there a link to the article posted?

  • Justsayn

    This whine will make for a chapter in the next book – the judicial review is nothing more than a public relations exercise. They seem to think all of this moaning will get the public on their side and then the Government will fork out our money, not because it is right, but just to avoid voter fallout.

    Well there is bad news. You have outstayed your 15 minutes, and we have moved on. Save yourself a lot of time (and us some money on lawyers) and piss off rabbit shooting – and don’t forget to turn the computer off on the way out.

  • DavidKNZ

    The ongoing bleating is set within a bigger framework – that David Bain must be innocent. Leave that subtext unchallenged for long enough, and it become the truth. Challenging this presumption with facts is a useful antidote – try

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/2518912/Plenty-of-doubt-in-Bain-jurys-verdict.

    Or more recently

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/8075826/Compensation-for-Bain-would-be-a-travesty.
    Its good to see straight up investigative journalism A refreshing change from the bent machinations of twisted lawyers

    • williamabong

      Two very interesting articles, if you had doubts about this case the articles answer a lot of questions, David Bain did it, as far as compensation goes, absolutely, give him nothing and Joe Karam half of it.

  • williamabong

    Bain will be able to take time off from his new job, he’s working as a photographer specialising in family shots.

    • Justsayn

      ooooo, that’s taking the gloves off and giving ’em one between the eyes

    • Mr_V4

      I thought he spent his days at KFC murdering family packs?

  • thehawkreturns

    Bain is clinging and scratching to this potential handout with his fingernails and his bloody fingerprints are all over this appeal. I wish he didn’t have to do his dirty washing in public but then it is important to be seen when doing the rounds. Maybe he can use his computer to clock a good appeal and not have to rifle around for a more balanced shell case…… (that’s enough jumpers – – Ed.)

  • Lion_ess

    See his point about having to pay for an extra night’s accommodation though – he’s the last person who’d be invited for a sleepover.

32%