Acquittals-the aftermath, some initial thoughts

Earlier today in the Saturday Rant, Adam commented on the actions of the police post the Kahui case. A commentator on that post asked whether Adam had any thoughts on the Prime Minister’s comments during the week on the Kahui case, which set Adam to thinking .

There has been considerable media comment, letters to the editor and a plethora of comment on redneck radio.

Much of this has been of the why let the guilty go free type, or try someone else, anyone, but try and convict someone. It is always so pleasant to see the Kiwi lynch mob bay for blood, rather than think about realities and what living in a democratic society subject to the rule of law means.

In New Zealand we have, thank god, a jury system which though not perfect is less subject to political pressure than some other systems. Further our judges are, in the main, competent though drawn from a small pool of talent. In addition our judges are not corrupt nor subject to election.

Poneke as usual has a thoughtful post today on aspects of this situation, and the comments on the post are essentially constructive also. Specifically Poneke was commenting on the Crown moving to have a re-trial in the Gwaze case. He points out some basic deficiencies in the way the Crown and Police approached that case.

Some have questioned whether it was appropriate for a doctor with neurological expertise to be on the Kahui jury, saying he would have had undue influence. On the premise that all the jurors listened to the evidence, we have to accept that there were grounds for acquittal. Further, based on the media reports Adam considers that the defence mounted a strong case for the presumption of reasonable doubt, thus Adam considers that though the outcome may be unpalatable to some, it was not inappropriate. Indeed, the presence of the doctor on the jury may well have prevented a miscarriage of justice.

This case may cause us to think about the desirability of introducing the Scottish concept of not proven, but it should not cause us to question our jury system.

Indeed, the jury system is a bulwark of our freedoms and the mark of a society which values the rule of law. It has been said that juries may provide justice, whereas courts will only administer the law as it is writ.

Criticism may be justified, but that should be heaped upon the police and the prosecution not upon the acquitted.

What has been less than helpful is the conduct of the Prime Minister in speaking out, no doubt with an eye as always to some focus group, as noted in this comment in the NZ Herald:-

Helen Clark took the unusual step of breaking with political convention by speaking out about the outcome of a court case, saying someone needed to be “brought to account” for the deaths of Chris and Cru Kahui.

She repeated her view that police would look at the case again “in the cool light of day” and “see whether there’s new angles to explore”.

Macsyna King’s lawyer, Marie Dyhrberg, today said Helen Clark should know better than to comment on such a high profile criminal case.

Ms Dyhrberg said the justice system would be corrupt if politicians were allowed to dictate how it runs.

Yet again H Clark seeks to influence events, no doubt Commissioner Broad has read the tea leaves and will rush to comply.

This government is one that even more than others has indulged in overt direction, covert direction and ‘nudge, nudge, wink wink’, when it comes to the police and aspects of the justice system. Though Adam tends to believe that all governments will do this if they think they can get away with it.

H Clark by her comments sought to influence the conduct of the police directly, overtly and thus in Adam ’s eyes went far beyond the bounds of what is acceptable.

New Zealand is not yet a dictatorship where a politician, even one who has gathered the reins of power so tightly as Clark, can so blatantly direct the police. However, Adam sadly notes the lack of any real protest or media comment on this further example of Clark aggrandisement.

David Garret had this article in the NZ Herald, an extract follows:-

Almost 40 years ago, the police were under intense pressure to find the killer of Jeanette and Harvey Crewe. At a time when we had five murders a year and not five a month, the murder of a young couple in their own home was front-page news for weeks.

The initial suspect was Mrs Crewe’s father, but police attention then switched to Arthur Thomas, who had once had something of a crush on Mrs Crewe. There was insufficient evidence to charge Thomas, so the police planted some, and two of their number later perjured themselves in court.

Eleven years later, a royal commission of inquiry made the above findings and Thomas was released from prison and paid $1million. The police never re-opened the file and have never admitted to the perjury or the planted evidence.

There are disturbing indications that in a sense, the Kahui trial had similarities with the Thomas one _ although this time there are suggestions that evidence that did not “fit” was ignored, rather than planted, to make it less likely the defence would find it. A complaint is to be filed with the Independent Police Conduct Authority in this regard.

Does anybody see a pattern emerging:-

• Peter Ellis
• Scott Watson
• Arthur Allan Thomas

Garret opened his article:-

Chris Kahui has been found not guilty of murdering his twin babies and the police have announced “no one else” will be charged with the murders. The reason _ sadly _ is simple: to now charge Macsyna King _ or anyone else _ would be to admit they may have got it wrong the first time. This has always been the way the New Zealand police have operated.

Well Adam thinks that it is time the NZ Police got real and recognised that the public will not put up with such arrogant complacency any more.

We have had enough of the government saying as regards issues, matter closed, move on; so we will damn well not take the same bilge and tosh from the police.

The issue is not juries, the issue is the police.

We want competent policing and we want it NOW!