The acquittal of David Bain will not have come as a surprise to anyone who followed the three-month trial.
The distinctive characteristic of the expert evidence was that the experts agreed on almost nothing. A Dunedin woman, stopped in the street by a TV interviewer, spoke for many when she
said her mind changed daily depending on the testimony she last heard.
But the opinions of people in the street count for nothing. Only the jury heard every word of the evidence. With the words "not guilty", they simply said that there was too much doubt in their minds to convict Bain of the ultimate crime.
This was as much a trial of the justice system as of the defendant. The Privy Council decision, which set aside Bain's 1995 convictions, found the possibility that there had been "a substantial miscarriage of justice" because potentially exculpatory evidence was withheld from the first jury. That finding pointed a finger of accusation at the heart of our justice system.
That being so, the Government should consider, as a matter of urgency, the question of whether Bain should receive compensation. The verdict does not mean he is innocent, but it is a matter of legal fact that he was unsafely convicted. He served more than 12 years for a crime he has not been lawfully convicted of having committed.
The rules require that Bain would have to prove his innocence - as distinct from his lack of guilt - in order to qualify for compensation. His legal team would have to prove that Robin Bain was the killer.
That is plainly impracticable. But the Crown could make an ex gratia payment. It spent many millions trying to convict him. It did so once. It would seem a small thing now to assist the 37-year-old to restart a life one third of which has been spent wrongly imprisoned.
