Timeline: David Bain...


 June 20, 1994 - David Bain's parents, Robin and Margaret, two sisters, Laniet and Arawa, and brother, Stephen, are shot and killed in their Dunedin home. Bain calls emergency services in a distraught state.



* June 24, 1994 - Bain is charged with five counts of murder. The following day the rest of his family are farewelled by 1000 mourners.



* July 7, 1994 - Bain home is razed by Fire Service at request of family.



* October 1994 - Depositions hearing begins and Bain is committed for trial in May 1995.



* May 8, 1995 - Three-week-long murder trial begins in the High Court at Dunedin. Unprecedented public and media interest.



* May 29, 1995 - Jury finds Bain guilty on all five murder counts.



* June 21, 1995 - Bain sentenced to mandatory life term, with a minimum non-parole period of 16 years.



* December 19, 1995 - Court of Appeal dismisses Bain appeal.


* May, 1996 - A petition to Privy Council seeking leave to appeal fails.



* July 22, 1996 - Court of Appeal lifts suppression order covering defence witness Dean Cottle and evidence that was to have been presented at Bain's murder trial. It alleges Laniet told Cottle that her father was having an incestuous affair with her and she was going to confront the family.



* April 16, 1997 - Joe Karam launches his book, David and Goliath. It says Robin, not David, was the killer, and that police botched the investigation.



* May 5, 1997 - Police appoint Assistant Commissioner Brion Duncan to head an independent inquiry reviewing police handling of the murder investigation.



* June 23, 1997 - James McNeish releases his book, The Mask of Sanity, which concludes that David was the killer.



* November 25, 1997 - Police in the murder investigation are cleared by the joint police and Police Complaints Authority inquiry. It finds no serious flaws in the police investigation and says criticism that police were incompetent is unjustified.



* March 1998 - Police officers to sue Karam over claims in his book.



* June 1998 - Petition of 113 pages and 290-page supporting document seeking a pardon for Bain is lodged with the Governor-General.



* June 1999 - Former Dunedin pathologist Jim Gwynne presents petition to Governor-General seeking pardon for Bain. Dr Gwynne says evidence shows Robin Bain committed suicide.



* June 9, 2000 - Damages suit brought against Karam by two Dunedin detectives, one since retired, fails in the High Court at Auckland.



* December 19, 2000 - Bain has aspects of his case referred back to the Court of Appeal. Justice Minister Phil Goff said an investigation had shown that "a number of errors" may have occurred in the Crown's presentation of its case.



* October 2002 - Court of Appeal considers four aspects of the case referred to it by Mr Goff.



* December 20, 2002 - Mr Goff announces the case is to be reheard in full by Court of Appeal.



* September, 2003 - Court of Appeal hears case.



* December 13, 2003 - Court of Appeal decides a retrial was not needed on the grounds that the new evidence would not have changed the jury's verdict.



* June 7, 2006 - Bain's legal team wins right to a full Privy Council hearing.



* March 8, 2007 - Five-day Privy Council hearing in London begins.



* May 10, 2007 - Privy Council delivers decision, ordering a retrial.



* May 15, 2007 - Bain granted bail at hearing in Christchurch High Court



* June 21, 2007 - Solicitor-General rules that Bain will face a retrial



* March 6, 2009 - Retrial begins. Bain pleads not guilty to five charges of murder



* June 4, 2009 - Retrial ends, jury begin deliberations



* June 6, 2009 - David Bain found not guilty of all the murders


Consideration for seeking compensation from the Crown: Is David Bain actually innocent? Being found not guilty on the evidence of the last trial is not good enough. Now the debate in New Zealand society continues. It will have  be up to Prime Minister, John Key,  and  his Cabinet  to  decide his innocence.

Seed Newsvine


The following can be regarded as a follow up to my previous post here about the Privy Council's decision to quash...


The following can be regarded as a follow up to my previous post here about the Privy Council's decision to quash David Blain's conviction for murdering his family in 1994 at Dunedin, New Zealand.



Why the Privy Council decided the way it did
By KEVIN NORQUAY - NZPA | Friday, 11 May 2007



A combination of nine key factors persuaded the Privy Council convicted murderer David Bain was the victim of a "substantial miscarriage of justice".
MORE INDEPENDENCE IN NZ JUSTICE SYSTEM NEEDED - LAWYER
STRONG DUNEDIN SUPPORT FOR BAIN DECISION


While none alone would have compelled their decision that Bain's convictions should be quashed, the nine taken together were compelling, the five Law Lords said.

That was a slap for the New Zealand Court of Appeal, with the Privy Council decision clear in its opinion that the court erred in its judgments.

A miscarriage of justice occurs if credible new evidence is admitted that might have persuaded a jury to reach a different conclusion.

While the Crown challenged the detail and significance of the nine points, the issue of guilt "is one for a properly informed and directed jury, not for an appellate court," the Law Lords said.

"Even a guilty defendant is entitled to such a trial," they said.

The issue was whether there was new evidence upon which a jury might reasonably decline to convict, they said.

No blame could be attached to the jury or judge in the initial Bain trial, in 1995, the Law Lords said.

"It is, however, the duty of the criminal appellate courts to seek to identify and rectify convictions which may be unjust," the Privy Council said.

"In the opinion of the board, the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points ... compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case."

The nine points were: 1. Robin Bain's mental state: At the jury trial Robin Bain was characterised as a "balanced, devout" school principal, with David Bain painted as more likely to carry out a frenzy of killing.

PRIVY COUNCIL: New evidence indicated Robin Bain's mental state was such that he may have lost touch with reality.

2. Motive: At the trial no plausible motive for either Robin or David Bain was established. Evidence from Dean Cottle that Robin Bain had been having sex with his daughter Laniet, who was working as a prostitute, was rejected as unreliable. Subsequently three new witnesses independently gave similar evidence.

PRIVY COUNCIL: Had the jury found Robin Bain to be deeply depressed, and facing public revelation of having sex with his teenage daughter, the jury might have concluded he had a motive for the killings.

3. Sock prints: At the trial a 280mm-long bloodied sock print found outside the murdered mother's bedroom was regarded as that of David Bain, as it was too big to be that of his father.

PRIVY COUNCIL: Fresh evidence throws "real doubt" over who made the print. Had the jury known that it could "reasonably infer ... it was about the length of print Robin would have made".

4. Computer switch on time: Trial evidence was that the family's computer was switched on at 6.44am, after David Bain returned home from his early morning paper run.

PRIVY COUNCIL: The jury should not have been given a precise computer switch-on time, as new evidence showed it could have been earlier, or later. While the Court of Appeal said that did not show David Bain could not have committed the murders, there was no onus on David Bain to prove that anyway. A jury might have considered "David's argument ... to be strengthened, had they known the full facts".

5. Time David Bain came home: The jury were told to treat an eyewitness account by Denise Laney of seeing a man resembling David Bain near the family home at 6.45am, as "at best approximate".

PRIVY COUNCIL: Fresh evidence might have led a jury to infer her identification was not in doubt and her estimate of time reliable. Instead the jury never heard her full evidence, nor was Mrs Laney cross-examined.

6. Glasses: An optometrist at the trial said glasses found in David Bain's room, minus a lens found in his murdered brother Stephen's bedroom, belonged to David Bain. David Bain said in court they were his mother's. After the jury trial the optometrist saw a photo of Mrs Bain wearing the glasses, and accepted he was mistaken.

PRIVY COUNCIL: David Bain was cross-examined on the glasses in a way that questioned his credibility. As the jury could not know the optometrist would revise his evidence they may have reasonably drawn "an inference unfairly adverse to David".

7. Left-hand lens: one lens from the glasses was found in Stephen's room, covered in dust and under other articles on the floor. Evidence presented to the jury placed the lens in the clear, in a visible and exposed position, consistent with the Crown case that it was dislodged in a struggle.

PRIVY COUNCIL: While the third Court of Appeal accepted the jury had been misled about the location of the lens, it said it did not matter as the misleading was not deliberate. This was not the case, the Law Lords said. "What mattered was what the trial jury made of the incorrect evidence ... and, even more importantly, what they would have made of the correct evidence".

8. Bloodied fingerprints on rifle: The jury trial assumed that David Bain's fingerprints on the rifle forearm were in human blood.

PRIVY COUNCIL: While there was human blood on the rifle, fingerprint material gave no positive test for human DNA, and the blood might have been from a possum or rabbit shooting, months earlier. The jury did not get to consider this, or other "highly contentious" related issues. Nor could the Court of Appeal resolve such matters, without hearing cross-examination of witnesses who gave contradictory evidence.

9. Laniet Bain gurgling: The trial jury was encouraged to regard David Bain hearing his sister gurgling as an indication of his guilt, as only the murderer could have heard her death throes. Court of Appeal hearings examined the phenomenon of post mortem gurglings, being told they can take place without the body being moved.

PRIVY COUNCIL: The Court of Appeal dismissed evidence supporting David Bain "without hearing any of these witnesses, and without giving any reason for discounting the evidence of the witnesses relied on by David, the court found it possible to regard the issue as concluded in the Crown's favour...

"The court assumed a decision-making role well outside its function as a reviewing body concerned to assess the impact which fresh evidence might reasonably have made on the mind of the trial jury.

The Privy Council in London has quashed the conviction of New Zealander, David Bain. for the murder of his family...

The Privy Council in London has quashed the conviction of New Zealander, David Bain, for the murder of his family in 1994. The lawlords claim a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.

David Bain has served 13 years for the murder of his parents, sisters and brother in Dunedin, New Zealand in 1994, at his trial in 1995. New Zealand's Court of Appeal was rebuked for not accepting new evidence in 2003. They claimed there was not enough to outweigh the "overwhelming" evidence of guilt.David Bain has always maintained his innocence, blaming his late father of murder and suicide.

The Crown in New Zealand would face significant problems holding a retrial because some witnesses were now dead.They would also have to put all of the evidence before a new jury - not just the evidence they wanted in the first trial.

Bain's lawyer said that David Bain should not be put through another trial because of the cost to the country; he should be released and pardoned.

The New Zealand Government has already abolished the right for future applications to the Privy Council - they have already created a new Supreme Court of New Zealand. But the question is now asked if they actually acted hastily, and has NZ enough experienced judges to act on their behalf. Questions are now asked about the quality of justice in New Zealand, considering the impact of previous trials and the actions of the NZ Police Force in recent times.

Or is this all part of a political attack against the ruling left of centre government?

Read story here