The Christchurch Civic
Creche Case |
|
|
|
United Future leader Peter Dunne
says the Privy Council ruling on the Bain case raises serious issues about
the way in which criminal trials are conducted in New Zealand. "While I do not want to
comment on Mr Bain's situation or his future, (although I acknowledge the
tenacity and dedication of Mr Karam and his legal team), I am concerned that
the Privy Council has identified serious deficiencies in the way evidence is
presented to New Zealand courts in cases of this type. "The layperson's presumption
is that all relevant material is put before the Court so that the jury of
one's peers can decide guilt or innocence. "The reality that the process
is far more selective is laid open to serious questioning in the light of the
Privy Council's decision on Mr Bain. "To make matters more
serious, Mr Bain's case is not an isolated example. "In the last decade alone,
similar allegations have swirled around such major cases as the Ellis case,
the Haig case, the Dougherty case, the Watson case, and aspects of the recent
Police rape trials – not to mention the Thomas case in the 1970s. "The common link in all these
cases is the way in which evidence is selected and presented to the Court,
and the allegation that relevant material detrimental to the prosecution is
either kept from juries or downplayed in the Court process. "I, for one, am left with an
uncomfortable feeling," he says. Mr Dunne says the time has come to
review both the rules of evidence and Court procedures in this regard, and
that the Law Commission would be the appropriate body to undertake this. "I respect the integrity of
our Courts, and am not seeking a witch-hunt, but I do think the cases I have
referred to outline a sufficient cause for concern," he says. |