Now this doesn’t mean a retrial will necessarily happen. That’s up to the Crown, which must decide whether it wants to pursue the charges again.
In a nutshell, this all comes down to the jailhouse snitch - Conchie Harris - who claimed Tamihere confessed the murders to him. Two years ago, the Court of Appeal ruled Harris’ evidence could not be relied upon and that it was therefore a miscarriage of justice to find Tamihere guilty.
However, the Court of Appeal still found Tamihere was guilty, based on what it described as new evidence.
The Supreme Court has now ruled that this was not the Court of Appeal’s role. Determining guilt is a matter for a jury, which is why today’s decision has been made.
So we will see what happens next.
But there is more at stake here than just Tamihere’s guilt or innocence. Serious questions now have to be asked about why so many convictions from the 1980s and 1990s are being overturned or quashed in this country.
David Bain. Alan Hall, who spent 19 years in jail for a murder he didn’t commit. Gail Maney. Stephen Stone, whose conviction was overturned a couple of years ago. Teina Pora, who spent 21 years in the slammer for a murder he didn’t commit. Peter Ellis, whose convictions were quashed four years ago. And the list goes on.
In total - and get a load of this - 893 convictions have been overturned in just the past 10 years. Now, obviously not all of those relate to the 1980s and 1990s but given the timing, many of them will.
It’s starting to look like a period in our justice system that demands some tough questions because a clear pattern is emerging. Back then, we relied on false confessions, questionable witnesses like jailhouse snitches, shoddy police work and some deeply troubling conduct from lawyers - some of whom were clearly prepared to bend the rules to get people behind bars.
That may have seemed acceptable at the time, and the public may not have cared, but it’s certainly not acceptable now. The consequences are catching up with us - not least because the country is now facing a growing compensation bill for these miscarriages of justice.
And watch this case closely, because compensation may well be the next chapter.
Heather du Plessis-Allan is a journalist and commentator who hosts Newstalk ZB's Drive show. This article was sourced from Newstalk ZB.
8 comments:
This also doesn't mean he didn't do it. It means that the authorities didn't show that he did do it, according to their own requirements.
I was present during a week-long criminal trial in Manukau Court. At the suggestion of the barrister I watched the jury.... faces stuck on phones, asleep, almost all new to this country, unemployed... And I recollect being called for jury service myself. Could always refuse due to work. NOTE.. our jury service no longer involves the wider population with real concerns re justice. It is a Civic Duty now ignored. So these earlier trials by jury look very suspect...
Compare Anon 903's description with the jury of the 19th and even 18th centuries - educated men (land owners entitled to vote) whom one could almost refer to as 'professional jurors' as the same faces tended to appear on juries often. I'm sure they were 'conservative' by modern standards but what would you rather have as a jury - them or the rabble we see on juries today many of whom are obviously 'cognitively challenged' by the evidence presented?
to anon 9:03
Just a few years ago juries were required to hand over their phones at the beginning of the day to be locked away and after the jury was shut off for deliberation they didn't get their phones back until finished.
For Barrie Davis.
Sounds to me as if you are a Bayes Theorem enthusiast. Bayes Theorem, the refuge of all legal scoundrels and purveyors of improper priors.
What I find interesting in the Tamihere case is the Court of Appeal refused to have it referred to the Privy Council, at the time the highest court in the Commonwealth. Silliest thing we ever did was to do away with the Privy Council and create our own Supreme Court, made up of what we now know to be a gang of activist Judges
Eamon Sloan: Yes, I am a Bayes Theorem enthusiast. Aristotelian logic is no longer sufficient. Used responsibly, with a prior composed by reasonable endeavours, Bayesian inference is the way of the future. I doubt, however, that the priors used in the Tamihere case were good enough.
Up until this year a Scottish jury could return a " not proven " verdict.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.