Bain decision ammunition for critics of NZ Supreme Court

The rare Privy Council decision to hear David Bain's appeal will give doubters new ammunition against New Zealand's fledgling Supreme Court, legal experts say.

It might also clear the way for a multi-million-dollar compensation claim that could eclipse previous payouts, University of Canterbury criminal law lecturer Chris Gallavin speculated yesterday.

"But that all depends on what the Privy Council decides, and why it reaches the decision it does."

In London, Bain supporter Joe Karam said the Privy Council identified 40 or 50 "factual errors" in the last Court of Appeal decision on the Bain case.

Dr Gallavin said that would be "more fodder for the people who opposed creating a Supreme Court to say we told you so".

The Supreme Court replaced the London-based Privy Council as New Zealand's highest jurisdiction in 2004.

Dr Gallavin said: "That the Privy Council has disagreed with some of our highest judges - opponents will say that is why we shouldn't have replaced it with our own Supreme Court in the first place."

University of Otago dean of law Professor Mark Henaghan said some would feel that claims evidence had been excluded, and that new evidence was not adequately considered, were perhaps best dealt with by a court "removed from such a small country".

He refused to characterise the decision as a "swipe" at New Zealand's highest courts.

In this country's 166-year association with the Privy Council, 10 New Zealand criminal cases received a full hearing: six were dismissed, three were allowed and one was withdrawn, say Justice Ministry figures.

- OTAGO DAILY TIMES