Steven Price

My book

Media Minefield


Guide to NZ Media Law

Official Information Act

Official Information Act


Bill of Rights Act

Media law resources

Feeds (RSS)


« | Main | »

Bain – and antidote?

By Steven | June 12, 2009

Calling evidence experts… Can anyone tell me why the Courts couldn’t have let the jury see half of the “paper run alibi” evidence? Why couldn’t jurors be told that David Bain was speculating about committing a crime, but it wasn’t murder, and it didn’t involve his family… and then let them hear and assess in full the evidence about how he said he would have jiggered his paper run to cover it up? (And of course, any evidence for Bain saying that such conversation(s) never took place).

Doesn’t that take out much of the prejucial effect of this evidence (which is reportedly why it was ruled inadmissible) but preserve its probative value (which strikes me as fairly strong)? 

I confess I haven’t been able to find an unredacted version of the Court of Appeal’s decision on this point. Did they really say that the paper run alibi didn’t form an important part of the Crown’s case? 

Topics: General | 1 Comment »

One Response to “Bain – and antidote?”

  1. ross Says:
    June 13th, 2009 at 1:19 pm

    As is usually the case, I agree with you, Steven.

    I did read that the appeals court said the paper run alibi didn’t form an important part of the Crown’s case, which struck me as strange. I thought it had been an important part of their case. There was at least one witness who testified that David Bain had delivered their paper 10 minutes earlier than normal on the morning of the murders. Another witness claimed that Bain had gone onto his property, which apparently was unusual. Furthermore, the paper run alibi was important for the Defence case because the Defence said he was on his paper run when the computer was turned on.

    I’m interested in your comment that the jury should’ve been told that Bain was speculating about committing a crime, but that it wasn’t murder, and it didn’t involve his family. Why not tell the jury that the crime was rape? That’s a very serious crime of course. To simply say that Bain was speculating about committing a crime does no justice to the seriousness of that crime. Like any evidence, it’s up to jurors to decide how much weight to give it. In this case, the Supreme Court seems to have usurped the role of jurors, ironic when you consider that the Court of Appeal had, years earlier, raised concerns about the Crown case but said that the new evidence wouldn’t have changed the trial outcome. Isn’t that for jurors to decide?

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.