2417 of 62458 members online
Coffee Machines 720 GetFrank GymJunkie Menu Mania Snow Surf Varsity

Forgot Your Password? Create Account
[quote]
Whoa! If there ever was a good reason to get a govt payout then this guy surely has one.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10557614

I'd love to hear the reasoning. He wrongly spent ten years of his life in the slammer!!!!
[quote]
Where are the journalists at the hearld (yes I know there are none) - could they not finish the article and tell us why no pay out?
[quote]
maybe the stuff journos too?
[quote]
quote:
he understands his compensation bid will be rejected when Justice Minister Simon Power speaks to media this afternoon.


Maybe Simon Power will explain all this avo. I eagerly await the reasoning for this.
[quote]
GFC????
[quote]
Maybe it's part of Nationals cutting out the fat policies. No paying out of compensation for fuck ups.
[quote]
quote:
But an investigation by Mr Robert Fisher QC found it was more probable than not that Mr Haig participated in Mr Roderique's murder.

"After carefully considering Mr Fisher's report, including meeting with him face to face to discuss his conclusions, I have decided to accept his advice, and today have informed Mr Haig that his claim for compensation has been declined," Justice Minister Simon Power said today.

Mr Haig applied for compensation in November 2006, and the claim was referred to Mr Fisher for assessment in September 2007 by then-Justice Minister Mark Burton.

"A fundamental requirement for payment of compensation under the Cabinet guidelines is that a Queen's Counsel is satisfied that the claimant is innocent on the balance of probabilities of the crime for which he was convicted and imprisoned.

"In this case, Mr Fisher had to establish that it was more likely than not that Mr Haig was not involved in the murder of Mr Roderique, either alone or as a party," Mr Power said.


updated Herald Story

so wrongly convicted but apparently still guilty?

Lawyers please clarify (lay terms please)
[quote]
Oh fuck that. It's absurd that our court can clear him of any guilt, but the Goverment (via a QC) can ajudge it differently.

bob_d, the "on the balance of probabilities" is a much lower bar for assessing "guilt" than "beyond reasonable doubt". And that rule is just ridiculous.
[quote]
garethw said:
Oh fuck that. It's absurd that our court can clear him of any guilt, but the Goverment (via a QC) can ajudge it differently.

bob_d, the "on the balance of probabilities" is a much lower bar for assessing "guilt" than "beyond reasonable doubt". And that rule is just ridiculous.



makes perfect sense to me

it may seem odd to the general public - remember OJ Simpson who was acquitted but later found liable for wrongful death in a civil trial?

that is a stark example of the different standard of proof

also, the QC is pointing out that Haig may not "have clean hands," so to speak, which is a moral disqualification to compensation

I don't have a problem with that
[quote]
garethw said:
Oh fuck that. It's absurd that our court can clear him of any guilt, but the Goverment (via a QC) can ajudge it differently.


They haven't though - they've vacated his conviction. It merely returns to the state they were at before the trial - I.e. he could still be the guy..
[quote]
RobW said:
...they've vacated his conviction.


Sorry. Meant to say: vacated but not exonerated.
[quote]
Its hardly Rex Haighs fault that the police are incompetent.
[quote]
justhanging said:
that is a stark example of the different standard of proof

also, the QC is pointing out that Haig may not "have clean hands," so to speak, which is a moral disqualification to compensation

I'm just not convinced that our Government should have a different standard of proof in this case - this man was convicted and put away for 10 years when he shouldn't have been. Even if he may have done it, he was incarcerated for 10 years when the system that put him there shouldn't have.

I have sympathy for the "but we don't want to pay out to people that clearly did it but got away on a technicality" view, but the fact remains that "the system" took away 10 years of his life when it shouldn't have. Compensation should be paid for that, not for the likelihood of his having committed the crime?
[quote]
justhanging said:
makes perfect sense to me

it may seem odd to the general public - remember OJ Simpson who was acquitted but later found liable for wrongful death in a civil trial?

that is a stark example of the different standard of proof

also, the QC is pointing out that Haig may not "have clean hands," so to speak, which is a moral disqualification to compensation

I don't have a problem with that


why didn't they just use this with the Kahui twins murders.....

just lock up some people and come back later and say....."yeah, we never really proved it was them but they probably had a part to play in it" Rolling Eyes
[quote]
um because the Kahui twins case was about establishing criminal responsibility not entitlement to compensation
[quote]
Jesus, it seems like a really simple concept. Think OJ Simpson or commercial law which requires on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

It would be abhorrent for someone to get paid out just on what could be a technicality so they have got a responsible person to look at all factors of the case and make a judgement.

He has and we have a result that in absence of any specific issues with his findings im prepared to accept.
[quote]
bob said:
Jesus, it seems like a really simple concept. Think OJ Simpson or commercial law which requires on the balance of probability rather than beyond all reasonable doubt.

It would be abhorrent for someone to get paid out just on what could be a technicality so they have got a responsible person to look at all factors of the case and make a judgement.

He has and we have a result that in absence of any specific issues with his findings im prepared to accept.


that's right

the independent legal opinion found that there was some evidence pointing to party involvement in the murder - not enough necessarily to prove to the criminal standard, but evidence nonetheless.

so he is not as pure as the driven snow, he is not entirely guiltless, he is not coming to the court with clean hands etc etc and therefore he does not meet the high standard to qualify for state compensation
[quote]
you'd need REALLY dirty hands to warrant 10yrs.
[quote]
virgo1 said:
you'd need REALLY dirty hands to warrant 10yrs.



you keep missing the point dude

rightly or wrongly, there is no automatic legal right to compensation in cases like these
[quote]
perhaps I should have mentioned that the claimant - as far as I understand - must establish "innocence"

which is a different concept than "not guilty" or "acquittal"
[quote]
there has to be a moral backing or at least a logic that led to the law being the way it is. I get convicted of crime X I get sentenced to say, 16yrs, new evidence comes to light that says that I probably didn't commit that crime after all, I just had "something" to do with it.......

logic tells me that the next step now is to figure out exactly how much that "something" amounts to.....does it amount to 10yrs, or does it amount to just 2yrs? If it is 2yrs then someone needs to compensate me for the 8yrs that I was unfairly locked up for.
[quote]
justhanging said:
perhaps I should have mentioned that the claimant - as far as I understand - must establish "innocence"

which is a different concept than "not guilty" or "acquittal"


Made this distinction above: they've vacated his conviction, not exonerated him. It merely returns to the state they were at before the trial - I.e. he could still be the guy but was convicted improperly.
[quote]
justhanging said:
rightly or wrongly, there is no automatic legal right to compensation in cases like these


much of continental Europe would say wrongly. and as a matter of principle it makes sense that people whose convictions are quashed should receive compensation for the punishment that they have endured as a result of a wrongful conviction. the requirement of proof of innocence is too onerous and unfair.
[quote]
RobW said:
Made this distinction above: they've vacated his conviction, not exonerated him. It merely returns to the state they were at before the trial - I.e. he could still be the guy but was convicted improperly.


so in other wordshe is innocent? As in innocent until proven guilty

I think the guy deserves something for the years he's lost - thats what a compassionate society would do
[quote]
bob daktari said:
so in other wordshe is innocent? As in innocent until proven guilty

I think the guy deserves something for the years he's lost - thats what a compassionate society would do


Yes. Like David Bain. Bain wasn't found not to have done it (exonerated) rather that he was convicted incorrectly. Therefore it rightly should go back to another trial. Many people don't want to see it because of the time, cost and chance he'd just be convicted all over again.

The practicality of it I think is if they wont redo Haig's case to establish it he should be presumed innocent and get something for his time.