Media statement
For immediate release
Friday, 11 May 2007

Dunne: Bain decision raises serious questions

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.

ENDS

© Scoop Media