Miscarraiges of Justice Symposium Paper
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECT Miscarriages of Justice: Are We Putting the Wrong People In Our Prisons? WHO ARE WE? WHAT DO WE DO? THE EQUAL JUSTICE PROJECT lecturer at the Faculty of Law) and MP Simon O’Connor. The Founded in 2005, the Equal Justice Project (EJP) is the panel expressed a variety of perspectives when addressing brainchild of Auckland Law School students Eesvan Krishnan controversial issues and concerns. and Peter Williams. Ten years later, EJP continues to flourish The team also made a submission on the Buildings under the leadership and participation of students from the (Earthquake-Prone Buildings) Amendment Bill, voicing Faculty of Law who share a passion for social justice. Rt. Hon objections to the proposal to allow circumvention of the E.W. (Ted) Thomas DCNZM QC, the patron of EJP, has often usual requirements for disability access when earthquake- discussed the importance of inculcating a “pro bono ethic” proofing buildings. With regards to the Education among law students. If law students appreciate the Amendment Bill (No 2), Outreach submitted in support of importance of pro bono services at an early stage in their having more diverse members on tertiary education councils. careers, Sir Ted hopes that we will see a shift toward law as a In relation to our community partners, Women’s Refuge profession instead of a business. and Blind Foundation, the team raised close to $500 through The goal of the Equal Justice Project is to empower and bake sales. Moreover, the team has encouraged students to support communities by addressing issues of equality, access donate clothes and books for Women’s Refuge. to justice, redress, representation and knowledge. The five In Semester Two, Outreach continued its work with the different limbs of the EJP – Pro Bono, Community, Education, Auckland Women's Centre; completing further research on Outreach and Communications – work together to achieve Family Law for women going through the Family Court this goal. As budding members of the legal profession, process, and gave a seminar on some of the bias in the volunteers contribute their time, creativity, skills and system for the Women's Centre to present to MPs. knowledge for the benefit of the wider community. At the end of August, Outreach held a political candidates forum on sexual offending law reform, at which speakers THE OUTREACH TEAM from 8 of the 10 major political parties were present. The Outreach team has the mission of increasing Volunteers also wrote a symposium paper in conjunction awareness of legal issues on campus and in communities. Its with the event. Outreach also submitted on the Crimes portfolios include raising knowledge about EJP within the (Match-fixing) Amendment Bill, which proposed to make student body, hosting a range of thought provoking events match-fixing in sport a crime. for students and the community, raising funds for our community partners through creative avenues and INTERESTED? presenting written and oral submissions on parliamentary If you are interested by what you read in this paper today, bills. Today’s Symposium is simply the latest episode in the follow us on Facebook by searching “Equal Justice Project” busy life of the Outreach team. to see the latest content from our volunteers, visit us at That life was no less busy than usual in 2014. A www.equaljusticeproject.co.nz to view our archives, or symposium on drug reform was held in April at the Faculty of contact us by emailing our directors Allanah Colley and Law with the panel comprising of Khylee Quince (senior Rayhan Langdana at [email protected]. Miscarriages of Justice: Are We Putting the Wrong People In Our Prisons? Paper Prepared for the Equal Justice Project Miscarriages of Justice Symposium University of Auckland — 13 May 2015 Equal Justice Project Outreach Team Co-Managers 2015 Maree Cassaidy & Joy Guo [email protected] Harriett Adams, Harriet Birch, Kelly Burrowes, Gabrielle Carter, Maree Cassaidy, Joy Guo, Sebastian Hartley, Luke Kibblewhite, Jason Kim, Naushyn Janah, Liam Johannesson, Min Kyu Jung, Jasper Lau, Linda Lim, Callum Lo, Bronwen Norrie, Chalisa Paltridge, Max Smith, Justys Vickers 1. Introduction ThisThis is is aa researchresearch reportreport conductedconducted toto outline the circumstances ofof thethe prosecution,prosecution, conviction,conviction, trials,trials, retrialsretrials and and appealsappeals of of Teina Teina Pora, Pora, DavidDavid BainBain andand MarkMark Lundy. This report aims to be objectiveobjective andand toto presentpresent thethe facts facts as as they they standstand based based on on evidence evidence gathered gathered and and considered. considered. FollowingFollowing a a statement statement ofof thethe factsfacts ofof eacheach case, each of the below questionsquestions areare thenthen addressedaddressed inin turn;turn; both both in in regardsregards to to each each case case and and with with also also in in regards regards the the lessons lessons to to be be drawn drawn from from reading reading all all three three cases cases together. together. •• AArere there there gaps gaps in in the the prosecution, prosecution, trial, trial, conviction, conviction, and and appeal appeal processes processes in ourin our Criminal Criminal Justice Justice System System that thatmay leadmay to lead a miscarriage to a miscarriage of justice? of justice? •• IfIf there there are are gaps, gaps, how how can can we we address address them them to to deliver deliver more more adequate adequate justice? justice? 2. The Facts of the Cases TeinaTeina Pora Pora Case Case ProsecutionProsecution SusanSusan BurdettBurdett waswas rapedraped andand murderedmurdered inin her home in March 1992.1992. TheThe eventualeventual prosecutionprosecution ofof PoraPora waswas substantiallysubstantially based based on on incriminating incriminating statements statements made made by by him him in in a a series series of of interviews. interviews. •• 1992:1992: Pora Pora was was initially initially interviewed interviewed about about Burdett’s Burdett’s murder. murder. He He made made a statement a statement to police to police that thathe had he seenhad 1 aseen bat and a bat a concreteand a concrete pipe, but pipe, was but not was considered not considered a suspect a suspect at this atpoint. this point. 1 •• 1818 March March 1993: 1993: Pora,Pora, 17,17, waswas arrestedarrested on an unrelated charge. DuringDuring questioningquestioning byby policepolice he he enquired enquired whetherwhether they they had had apprehendedapprehended anyoneanyone forfor Burdett’s murder and informed themthem thatthat hehe knewknew who who had had committedcommitted the the crime.crime. HeHe waswas told about a rewardreward andand informedinformed aboutabout indemnityindemnity againstagainst prosecution prosecution beingbeing available available for for anybody anybody who who was was not not considered considered a principala principal suspect. suspect. He He was was given given a form a form to clarifyto clarify the 2 informationthe information on indemnity, on indemnity, which which Pora Poraclaimed claimed to understand. to understand. 2 •• 18-2118-21 March: March: OverOver thethe nextnext fourfour daysdays police conducted a series ofof interviewsinterviews wherewhere PoraPora providedprovided various various accountsaccounts of of the the day day inin question.question. He initially claimed he went to robrob thethe househouse withwith twotwo members members of of the the MongrelMongrel Mob Mob (“Dog” (“Dog” and and “Hound”). “Hound”). He firstHe firstclaimed claimed they returnedthey returned to the tocar the with car a baseballwith a baseball bat dripping bat withdripping blood. with His blood.story then His changed story then and hechanged told police and hehe was told the police look-out he wasfor the the mob look-out members. for the He mob later saidmembers. he had enteredHe later Mrssaid Burdett’s he had entered house afterMrs Burdett’shearing screams. house after He hearinglater indicated screams. personal He later involvement indicated sayingpersonal he involvementhelped to hold saying the victim he helped down to while hold onethe ofvictim the othersdown whileraped one her. of At the a laterothers point raped his her. Aunt At and a Unclelater pointwere presenthis Aunt during and Uncle interviews were presentwhere Pora during again interviews said he wherehad held Pora the again victim said down he hadwhile held the thetwo 3 othersvictim raped down her.while the two others raped her.3 •• CrimeCrime scene scene visit:visit: PoraPora waswas takentaken toto the scene of the crime and askedasked toto identifyidentify Burdett’sBurdett’s house.house. HeHe is is describeddescribed as as beingbeing confusedconfused andand disoriented having great difficulty identifyingidentifying thethe househouse whenwhen directly directly 4 outsideoutside it. it.4 •• AdditionalAdditional evidence:evidence: InformationInformation waswas givengiven byby Martha McLoughlin who claimedclaimed thatthat thethe weekweek afterafter MrsMrs 5 Burdett’sBurdett’s murder, murder, Pora Pora told told her her of of aa bloodstainedbloodstained softballsoftball batbat hehe hadhad discardeddiscarded near a drain in Manakau. Miss5 Miss Burdett Burdett had had allegedly allegedly died died due due to fatalto fatal injuries injuries inflicted inflicted by bya bat. a bat. Page !4 of !28 TheseThese circumstances circumstances mustmust bebe viewedviewed againstagainst thethe background there was no evidenceevidence ofof thethe twotwo menmen (“Dog”(“Dog”