‘Convicted double murderer Scott Watson will have his case investigated by an initiative set up to challenge suspected miscarriages of justice.
The New Zealand Public Interest Panel (NZPIP) will launch on June 13, as a joint initiative between the University of Canterbury and a high-powered panel of experts.
…Justice Minister Amy Adams was critical of the NZPIP and its members, saying self-initiated review groups were “no substitute for an impartial judicial-level review and its findings carry no legal weight”. (bold mine kg)
“I note that many of the people involved in the panel have been advocates for the defence in many high-profile cases, which could lead to perceptions that the panel reviews may not be impartial,” she said.
She had confidence in the system’s ability to rectify miscarriages of justice.’
Well, Amy Adams, we’d all like to have “confidence in the system’s ability to rectify miscarriages of justice”. But very many of us have no confidence in the system’s ability to deliver justice in the first place, let alone rectify the results of cock-ups and corruption and cronyism.
And to get to your “impartial judicial-level review” we first need impartial judicial-level justice.
Amy Adams is talking out of her arse. The purpose of the new panel is to look at cases that have already been the subject of judicial review but still have a thread of doubt about them. Since the Clark government extinguished the right of appeal to the Privy Council public acceptance of the Judiciary has waned. I expect only a tiny % of cases will be brought before the panel. It is of course entirely arbitrary which cases will be the subject of review. I suspect that the vast number of convictions are absolutely correct and a good instance of one which has again been shown to be so, is Lundy’s second trial.
“I suspect that the vast number of convictions are absolutely correct..”
So do I, Cad. Which makes it all the more important that those where there is some lingering doubt be subject to a review process the public can have some confidence in.
National should bring back the Privy Council, and the Upper House. Things were more democratic with both, better checks and balances and not just my way or the highway…but will it happen? Yeah, right….
I believe Watson was rightly convicted, but ever since the Bain debacle, these crims think they have an out…
I don’t think the Poms would have us back. it was their expense afterall.
As it happens, Watson is the only one of the prominent cases of recent decades where I feel guilt is in question. The others, Thomas, Bain, Lundy et al are killers, cheats and liars. In my opinion anyway.
The Watson and Peter Ellis convictions both stink to high heaven.
Correct. I had forgotten about Peter Ellis. He was apparently the target of a group of loony women who set-out on a witch-hunt of terrible proportions.
you’re not wrong KG
Cadwallader, I can’t believe you have Thomas in there (the rest I believe are guilty), police planted evidence and there is another suspect, never followed up. Thomas was absolutely framed up by the cops (in my opinion), a total stitch-up job.
The reason for his pardon was the unlawful action of the Police, not his perceived innocence. For many years I believed in Thomas’ innocence but now, after 4 decades no other plausible suspect has been identified. Thomas had motive and opportunity.
I knew a bloke who was in prison with Watson. His opinion of the man was he didn’t do that/those murders, but was a bad enough bastard to be locked away for good.
(I think it was that he’d done another murder[s])
Readers may find this site interesting:
http://www.kiwisfirst.com/