Ian Binnie

Larry Williams on the Bain leak

Larry Williams has the best summary of the Bain leak. Where other media have lapped up the Bain camp lines, almost on cue, he stands as an outlier on the issue.

A confidential report on the David Bain compensation case apparently finds Bain not “innocent beyond reasonable doubt”.

Bain will not receive a dime then, unless the Government goes against the review findings.

The Government is now being accused of moving the goalposts to avoid paying Bain compensation. That they went shopping for the result they wanted and manipulated the process.

Really ?

There were no such accusations when the Government started the process and appointed Canadian judge Ian Binnie to review the case for compensation.

Justice Minister Judith Collins, a lawyer by the way, ordered a peer review because she wasn’t satisfied that Binnie’s report stacked up.

If you are a competent Justice Minister and you receive a report you think is “suspect” you have a duty to review it.

Collins did just that.

The review by retired Judge Robert Fisher QC found Binnie’s report flawed. To be precise, he found “several errors of law”.

Collins’ instincts and judgment was proven to be correct. Some of the top legal brains in the country came to the same conclusion – that Binnie’s report fell short.

Read more »

Not one cent Amy, and Karam is losing the plot, getting close to a lawsuit I suspect

Amy Adams has announced she will commission yet another review into the ongoing claim for compensation by David Bain or is it Joe Karam…hard to work out who is claiming as Bain never says anything.

The Government will launch a fresh inquiry into David Bain’s compensation claim after agreeing to set aside all previous advice on the matter, Justice Minister Amy Adams has announced.

David Bain’s long fight for compensation will start afresh with all previous advice put aside, Government has confirmed.

Justice Minister Amy Adams said this afternoon Cabinet did not have enough information to reach a decision on a potential payout for Mr Bain, who spent 13 years in prison before being found not guilty of murder in a retrial.

Mr Bain was imprisoned in 1995 after being convicted for killing five family members in Dunedin, but was freed after being found not guilty in a second trial in 2009.

Judith Collins has said she would do it all again as well. As well she should, Binnie’s report was dreadfully and hopelessly flawed.

Former Justice Minister Judith Collins says she “stands by everything I said and did” in relation to David Bain’s compensation case after his supporters accused her of derailing the process at a huge cost to the taxpayer.


Mr Bain’s advocate Joe Karam said the blame for the new delay and its associated costs could be placed squarely on Mrs Collins, who “secretly” asked for a peer review of an initial inquiry by former Canadian Supreme Court judge Ian Binnie.

“It’s a great shame for David, for me, for the New Zealand public in general,” he said. “It’s extremely disappointing that this should happen from a number of points of view, not least of which is the taxpayers who now have to cough up between half a million and a million dollars.”

Mr Karam said he was more confident of a positive outcome from the new review because he believed Ms Adams would be more principled than her predecessor and would not “bulldoze” any findings.

Mrs Collins shot back at Mr Karam yesterday, saying she could never have awarded compensation based on a faulty inquiry.

“I stand by everything I said and did,” she told the Herald. “I did exactly what I had to do.”

Justice Binnie found that Mr Bain was innocent “on the balance of probabilities”, but the peer review by QC Robert Fisher found numerous errors in his findings.

Mrs Collins said the main reason for a delay in the five-year process was the decision by Mr Bain’s side to seek a judicial review of the Government’s handling of the case.

Read more »

Why does Joe Karam mislead so much?

Joe Karam went on Radio NZ yesterday and basically showed what a nasty, vicious little man he is.

Her refers to Amy Adams by title and her full name, same with Simon Power, but in all his comments about Judith Collins he just calls her “Collins” or worse.

In a report released in late 2012, a former Canadian Supreme Court judge, Ian Binnie, concluded that Mr Bain was innocent and suggested he should receive compensation.

However, Ms Collins then sought a review of that report, which criticised the findings as legally flawed.

Mr Bain’s legal team sought a judicial review, arguing that Ms Collins had pre-determined the claim and could not distinguish between her role as Justice Minister and her previous role as Police Minister.

Ms Collins resigned as a minister during the election campaign last year, after an email surfaced suggesting she had been part of efforts to undermine the head of the Serious Fraud Office in 2011. An inquiry later found no evidence to support that.

Mr Bain’s chief supporter Joe Karam told Checkpoint it was now up to Ms Adams to have the claim considered by Cabinet ministers.

“We have no reason to believe that she won’t do a proper just job, as Simon Power did. The only thing that’s gone wrong is the pugnacious minister that we had in between times.”

Read more »

Not one cent Amy, not one cent

David Bain is continuing on with his spurious claim for compensation…aided of course by his pal Joe Karam.

David Bain’s bid for compensation has moved a step forward with the Justice Minister confirming Cabinet will resume consideration of his claim.

Mr Bain’s legal team last month held confidential discussions with Justice Minister Amy Adams over his compensation bid.

Ms Adams today confirmed judicial review proceedings had been discontinued following an agreement between the two parties.

“With the matter resolved, Cabinet can now resume its consideration of Mr Bain’s claim for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment,” Ms Adams said.

Cabinet agreed in February 2013, at Mr Bain’s request, that consideration of his application for compensation would be put on hold, pending determination of the judicial review proceedings he filed.

Those judicial review proceedings have been discontinued by Mr Bain, Ms Adams said.

“This discontinuance does not resolve Mr Bain’s underlying compensation claim, just the separate judicial review process. I plan to discuss next steps with my Cabinet colleagues over the coming weeks,” she said.

“While the details of the agreement are confidential, I can confirm that there was no contribution made towards Mr Bain’s compensation claim as part of this discontinuance.”

Ms Adams said there would be a further announcement regarding the consideration of the application in due course.

Read more »

Bain and Karam lose every single point in case against Collins

David Bain and Joe Karam

David Bain and Joe Karam

David Bain and his deluded supporter Joe Karam have lost every single point in their case against Judith Collins. I can’t wait for the experts to destroy his fanciful claims over the miraculous greasy marks on Robin Bain’s hands. Things aren’t going well for Bain and Karam, no wonder they are silent at the moment.

David Bain has lost his bid for access to documents linked to? his compensation case, with the High Court ruling they are legally privileged.

Bain applied for judicial review over Justice Minister Judith Collins’ handling of his compensation bid after he was acquitted of the murders of his family members at his second trial. He? spent 13 years in prison after being convicted at his first trial.

His team says Collins had pre-determined his application for compensation and exhibited bias. She ordered a peer-review of a report by retired Canadian judge Ian Binnie that recommended compensation.

In preparing for the judicial review, Bain was provided 600 documents in discovery but the minister’s legal advisers claimed legal privilege over? 200-250 other documents held by her office, her lawyer and Crown legal bodies.

Bain challenged the privilege claim, but Justice Keane has ruled today that? Collins was justified in with-holding the documents.? Read more »

Karam’s embedded Herald PR flunkie howls with manufactured outrage

David Fisher continues the Joe Karam initiated PR fest on behalf of David Bain by…shock, horror…writing about a minister doing her job.

A 34-point list of issues attacking the case for David Bain’s innocence was compiled by Justice Minister Judith Collins and sent to the former High Court judge she appointed to “peer review” the case.

The list was sent with her letter of instruction to Robert Fisher QC, who prepared a report which dismissed the finding of former Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie that Mr Bain was probably innocent.

It has prompted Opposition parties to accuse Mrs Collins of bias and attempting to rort Mr Bain’s claim for compensation, filed after he was found not guilty in 2009 of murdering his family. It was the second murder trial stemming from the 1994 murders – Mr Bain was convicted of murder at the first and spent 13 years in prison before the original verdict was quashed. ? Read more »

This week’s Truth out now



Truth News Headlines


Who should be buying Truth this week?

Read more »

Cactus on Rodney Hide’s shark jumping

Cactus Kate isn’t impressed with Rodney Hide’s little bit of shark jumping in the NZ Herald:

In the meantime in HoS?Rodney Hide is jumping the shark?about the Canadian rogue Justice Binnie. ?I still cannot get over the pertinent fact that if David Bain did not kill his family, there is only Robin left and why on earth if you were slaughtering your family, wouldn’t you pop David after his paper run? ?Rodney has studiously read almost everything on the case in his superbrain sort of way and is now his usual determined self that Binnie is right and Bain should get compensation.

Go leave your own comments on his column. Be polite but firm :-). I have already scrapped with him about it at length. ?He wins the academic argument but I still win at a practical level.

Rodney is being very technical…but in an area that Binnie was never asked to report on…and he is forgetting that Binnie exceeded his brief.

Read more »

CK Stead slams Binnie report as showing clear bias

The NZ Herald seems to have changed it’s tune a fair bit on David Cullen Bain, now printing stories critical of Binnie, Bain and Karam.

This morning there was a letter from CK Stead:

I have an impression that in some degree, Justice Binnie may have entered the fray in the same spirit, seeing himself as someone called in to “right a wrong”, though he is certainly not, I should add, one who is impatient with the facts or unwilling to wrestle with them, one at a time.

But that “one at a time” is part of the problem.

He’s not the only one. Have a read through the various interviews that Binnie had and read with increasing anger at was clearly a bias and opinionated judge, off to make a name for himself at the expense of NZ taxpayers.

Stead picks up on this bias and wording and notes:

As Dr Fisher points out, a circumstantial case depends on the strength of a single rope made up of many strands, any one of which may be insufficient. Justice Binnie’s method is to begin with the Luminol footprints, the weakest strand (at least in the sense of being the most technical and therefore technically arguable), declare it favours David Bain, and then bring each of the other strands in the case up against those footprints and find it wanting. And it is to the footprints he returns first in his “Summary and conclusions as to factual innocence” (p.138).

Yet even Justice Binnie admits “‘luminescence’ in the dark does not exactly give rise to laser-like accuracy”, and agrees “there must be some room for error in the Luminol measurement” (p.79/257). It seems strange, therefore, that he has “no hesitation in recommending that the Minister accept the results of the tests of Mr Walsh” [for the Defence] (p.77/251), and proceeds from that point in a manner which suggests the case for innocence has been made and needs only be demonstrated by reiterating the defence argument against each of the other strands.

His consequent bias is apparent in statements like the following: “It is only the fingerprint blood that can tie David Bain rather than Robin Bain to the killings.”Only? And there is nothing at all that can tie Robin to the murder weapon except that he was killed with it!

Another example of this bias: “Nothing has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the items of physical evidence, considered item by item both individually and collectively,?and considered in the light of my interview with David Bain” [my italics] … “persuade me that David Bain is factually innocent” (p.139/ 463). But why should items of fact, none of which, Justice Binnie concedes, is “free of difficulty”, be considered “in the light of” the accused’s own testimony, which is more likely than any other to be false?

A further example: “If David Bain’s recollection … is accepted, and I do accept it, then the force of the prosecution’s argument … is much diminished” (p.38/124). But of course if we only have to go to David Bain for the truth, then the prosecution’s argument is not just diminished – it’s dead! What kind of source is the accused for the truth of the matter in a case of murder?

Don’t believe an eminent and?perspicacious?writer as to the tone of bias throughout? Go read them for yourself…you will be astonished.

Read more »

David Cullen Bain should get nothing, the Herald survey is wrong

David Fisher has taken a break from repeating Kim Dotcon’s words verbatim or from regurgitating Ian Wishart’s latest conspiracy theory to write (did he really write it) about a survey/poll that shows that most Kiwis, apparently, support giving David Cullen Bain some taxpayer cash.

Well not me, not ever.

All that poll/survey shows is how susceptible people are to long term persistent pr campaigns like that run by Joe Karam.

You know the survey/poll is totally suspect by the constant qualifications in Fishers article.

A?Herald-DigiPoll summer survey found 74 per cent of those polled believe Mr Bain should be compensated if the judge who reviewed the case recommended that. (The survey was started on December 7, before Justice Ian Binnie’s recommendation of compensation became public.)


The poll of 500 people was done amid fallout from the review by Justice Binnie.

But what is it? A poll or a survey? The two are quite different. Clearly Fisher doesn’t know the difference. He is more intent on printing Charles Chauvel’s nasty little smears:

Labour justice spokesman Charles Chauvel said the “ad hoc” process had become “rotten”. He said Justice Binnie’s report was “perfectly adequate” and did not deserve “bile” from an “Auckland tax lawyer” like Ms Collins.

Right so someone who?she worked as a?lawyer, specialising in employment, property, commercial, tax law and active in legal associations, and was President of the?Auckland District Law Society?and Vice-President of the?New Zealand Law Society is an “Auckland tax lawyer”.

Using that logic I guess one could say Chauvel is a former editor of a little read legal bulletin and former lickspittle and lunch boy to proper lawyers engaged on important matters of law.