Bain family murders

In 2007, his legal team, guided by Karam, successfully appealed to the Privy Council, arguing that Robin Bain was involved in an incestuous relationship with one of his daughters.

Ian Binnie, a retired justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, was appointed in November 2011 to review the circumstances and advise the government on whether compensation should be paid.

This report was rejected by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, on advice from the police,[7] the Solicitor-General[8] and High Court Judge Robert Fisher.

[9] Following Judith Collins' resignation, in March 2015 the government appointed Ian Callinan, a retired justice of the High Court of Australia, to conduct a second review of David's compensation claim.

[4]: 3 At David Bain's third Court of Appeal hearing, fellow teachers described Robin at the time of the killings as "deeply depressed, to the point of impairing his ability to do his job of teaching children."

Cyril Wilden, a former teacher and registered psychologist visited the Taieri School, and noted that "Robin appeared to be increasingly disorganised and struggling to cope."

[20] At David Bain's retrial, witnesses said the meeting was called because Laniet, aged 18 at the time, wanted to disclose that her father had been committing incest with her prior to the murders.

"[22] When the police arrived they found five members of the Bain family dead, having all suffered gunshot wounds – Robin (58), his wife Margaret (50), their daughters Arawa (19) and Laniet (18), and their son Stephen (14).

He returned to the house about an hour later, typed a message on the computer that said "Sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay" and then waited in the lounge for his father to come in from the caravan before shooting him in the head.

[26] The defence case was that Robin shot and killed his wife and children, then turned on the computer, typed in the message to his son and committed suicide.

[26] Dean Cottle, a witness who was expected to testify for the defence that Laniet was intending to expose an incestuous relationship with her father, failed to show up at court when called.

[27] Cottle provided a written statement to this effect but Justice Williamson found him unreliable as a witness and, in his absence, ruled against admission of his testimony.

"[30] Justice Neil Williamson told the jury that the Crown said "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation".

[31] At the conclusion of the trial, David was convicted by the jury on five counts of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment with a sixteen-year non-parole period.

[32] Former All Black rugby player Joe Karam became interested in the case in 1996, when he read a newspaper article about some university students trying to raise money for David's appeal by selling jam.

He worked fulltime on David's case up until the 2003 appeal and friends estimate he lost up to $4 million in terms of his time, loss of earnings and costs of legal and forensic experts.

The woman he loved left him, he sold his home and he doesn't bother going to dinner parties any more, sick of them ending in an argument and a walk-out.

"[38] The first application was made to the New Zealand Court of Appeal in 1995, principally on whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to admit Cottle's testimony.

[39] In March 2007, David's legal team, including Karam, travelled to London to lay out nine arguments before the Privy Council as to why his convictions should be quashed.

[40] The Privy Council concluded that: "In the opinion of the board, the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points ... taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case.

However no inquests were held; a Law Society spokesman pointed out that even if the coroner's findings disagreed with the retrial verdict, this could not lead to any further legal action against David.

Auckland defence lawyer Peter Williams QC said David would be suffering from the stigma experienced by ex-prisoners re-entering the workplace.

[47] His case fell outside Cabinet rules on compensation, meaning the government was not obliged to pay him anything, but may do so if he was able to establish his innocence on "the balance of probabilities" and was also considered to be the "victim of exceptional circumstances".

She disagreed with Binnie's conclusions and sought feedback on his report from the police, the Solicitor-General and former High Court judge Robert Fisher without consulting Cabinet, and before releasing it to David's legal team.

The new Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, said Callinan had been selected based on his extensive criminal experience and because he would bring a fresh perspective to the inquiry.

[69] Chris Gallavin, Dean of law at Canterbury University said: “The decision of the [government] to retain another judge smacks of a fishing exercise in order to receive a conclusion that best suits their desires.

The gathering and analysis of the evidence, consideration of the relevant legal issues and conclusions are measured and compelling… he makes no errors in his methodology and reasoning.

The analysis does not sustain either of these allegations.”[71] Christchurch barrister Nigel Hampton said "It's pragmatism overcoming principle, and from a lawyer's point of view it's slightly concerning.

What we have now is an outcome pleasing no one, two reports contradicting each other, an indefensible process and an apparent admission from the top that it's not justice or principle that rules but pragmatism.