Friday, February 19, 2016


Classic whodunit.    And like all good whodunits all you need to do is follow the money.   Who is likely to benefit from the leak?   Not the Government, they need leaks like a hole in the head.

That leaves only one other possibility ... the Bain camp.   They were given a copy of the report.    If the media reports are correct and it is unfavourable to them then you have both motive and opportunity.  

Easy really.


Anonymous said...

If Collins had been an effective and non partisan Justice Minister she would have accepted the Privy Council and High courts decision after the new trial and quietly put it to bed with a negotiated settlement.

But no, she had to grandstand and in doing so has cost the county millions with more to come. Intransigence is great when it's not your money but if that happened in the private sector her feet would not have touched.

By intimating that somehow her own Justice system got it wrong is not the sign of a leader and if our sportsmen ignored the refs decisions how long would they last. The opinion of guilt or not does not enter the equation..

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Psycho Milt said...

Personally, I don't think we should even be asking judges whether we should pay compensation to someone who quite possibly (quite likely, even) murdered his own family - it should be a flat "No." That said, following the money in the case of this leak leads directly to Cabinet - they're the ones who gain from the public being primed for a rejection of Bain's compensation claim. The Bain camp stand to lose big-time from this leak, not gain from it.

The Veteran said...

PM ... I disagree. There is no need for Cabinet to 'prime' anyone. Their decision stands whatever. OTOH, some in the Bain camp are now arguing the 'leak' means the whole matter should now go back to square one ... who benefits from that?

MiLord ... if you have doubts about a report you have it peer reviewed. That's exactly what happened in respect of the Binnie Report which was found wanting. You don't recommend payout based on a flawed report and it's getting into somewhat surreal territory to suggest, as Binnie now does, that the matter should be determined in the court of public opinion ... how the hell do you do that with the public hopelessly divided on the issue?

Whatever Cabinet decides will be wrong in some peoples eyes and it was always going to be wrong no matter what.

Anonymous said...

PM: Your opinion on his guilt or innocence is as worthless as mine and should not enter into the discussion. The Privy council found there was a miscarriage of Justice and a new trial found him innocent. If the ref says it was a stiff arm tackle and awards the penalty..that's it, your own opinion does not count so you stop whinging.

Veteran: It has been handled badly and there never should have been million dollar reports commissioned in the first place as it not only diminishes the minister but brings the law into disrepute. And so after millions of dollars of taxpayers dosh it still drags on and if she could not foresee the obvious results of her actions then she should not have held down the job in the first place.

If you are charged with a crime and found guilty in a court of law that's it game over. However if you are a model prisoner and you are eligible for parole the first thing you are asked to do is show remorse and admit to wrong doing. It is cast in stone that you are guilty because the law found you so. The high profile cases where the inmates never admitted guilt and stayed in prison rather than go free are Bain, Ellis and Scott thingy of the sounds murders. The mind boggling hypocrisy at the other end of the telescope where a courts decision is questioned by a minister to further her own ends or political status is unacceptable. Just bite the bullet, negotiate a settlement and get rid of it.

Better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man hanged. (I didn't coin that)

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

@Lord Egbut Nobacon

"The Privy council found there was a miscarriage of Justice and a new trial found him innocent."

Not true. Care to rephrase that statement?

pdm said...

The good lord said:

`If you are charged with a crime and found guilty in a court of law that's it game over.'

As I recall David Bain was found guilty twice by NZ courts before going to the Privy Council for a `Not Proven' decision.

Two to one suggests `game over' as the good lord says!!

Anonymous said...

OK "Not Guilty" then.

Pdm: has it not crossed your mind that in the final trial the admisable evidence had chamged.

Lord Egbut