KEY POINTS:
It is little wonder many people felt appalled and bewildered when Chris Kahui was found not guilty of the murder of his twin sons. The circumstances of the case cried out for someone to be accountable. Two tiny premature babies, kept alive by round-the-clock care in a neonatal intensive care ward had died of massive brain injuries less than a month later. Police inquiries were frustrated as the extended family closed ranks and refused to speak to detectives. Almost two years later, and after a trial lasting six weeks, a jury has taken just 10 minutes to find Mr Kahui innocent. Many questions arise.
One is whether Mr Kahui should ever have been prosecuted. The briskness of the jury's verdict says everything about its view of the Crown evidence. Worse, this decision follows other high-profile cases that have met a similar fate over the past few years. Former police assistant commissioner Clint Rickards walked free from court, as did the quartet charged with conspiracy to defraud the Auckland Rescue Helicopter Trust. It is perhaps tempting to think the police and the Crown Law Office are making rash, and ultimately costly, decisions to press charges when the evidence is thin and the chances of success doubtful.
The more high-profile cases that are taken and lost, the more public confidence in justice is shaken. Any such alarm must, however, be weighed against the pressure on the police. While their investigation into the death of the Kahui twins was severely compromised, there was a public expectation that someone would be brought to justice. Likewise, Louise Nicholas's allegations meant there was severe pressure to prosecute Mr Rickards on sexual misconduct charges. If the police or the Crown Solicitor had decided not to go ahead, there would have been a considerable public clamour and, doubtless, claims of police incompetence. A decision to prosecute, even if the Crown evidence was likely to be challenged strongly, was understandable. A trial's outcome cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. It is likely, too, that defence lawyer Lorraine Smith was underrated by Mr Kahui's accusers.
More concerning were the comments of the Kahui inquiry head, Detective Inspector John Tims, in the immediate aftermath of the jury's verdict. He was adamant the police would not be charging anyone else, including the babies' mother, Macsyna King. "There is no new evidence, the defence brought no new evidence to trial, there will be no further investigation into this matter. As far as I am concerned, the matter is closed."
This statement verges on the rash, if only because Mr Tims almost certainly had not had time for a considered review with the Crown's lawyers of what could be drawn from the trial.
Clearly, he believes the police had their man. All other potential suspects had been thoroughly investigated, he said. In his mind, therefore, the police's only problem was that the defence was able to establish reasonable doubt. This hints at a closed perspective, given the questions raised at the trial relating to the whereabouts of Macsyna King. Mr Tims has conceded the police inquiry did not run smoothly, mainly because the family's code of silence did not allow it to. Ally this to the jury's quickfire dismissal of the Crown case and, therefore, regard for the defence's contentions, and there is ammunition to suggest the police should cast another eye over the case.
No one would criticise Mr Tims if the police were to revise his initial view. Rather, people would applaud the fact that prudent practice had overridden pride. The public interest lies in justice being done. Mr Kahui's trial has raised issues that suggest the need for further investigation. Reference to the enormity of the crime should be enough to persuade the police to leave no stone unturned.
