The decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London that Mark Lundy's murder convictions should be quashed and his case retried has taken many by surprise and created shockwaves throughout the country.
While his supporters are understandably delighted, family and friends of Lundy's wife Christine and daughter Amber are naturally upset. And the decision has reignited public debate about faith in our police and judicial system.
Lundy was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 17 years for killing Christine and 7-year-old Amber at their home in Palmerston North in 2000.
In 2002, the Court of Appeal threw out his case and increased his minimum non-parole period to 20 years. He continues to maintain his innocence.
The appeal to the Privy Council - the final appeal court available to New Zealanders for cases which were judged by the Court of Appeal before January 1, 2004 - was held in June.
It hinged on several aspects including failure of police to disclose a document to the defence, failure of the judge to properly direct the jury about evidential matters, and the validity of some scientific and other examinations.
It said the differences between the experts provided by the defence and Crown were so profound they could only be resolved by a retrial.
That the Privy Council believes a miscarriage of justice may have occurred is hugely concerning. This is even more so when it is added to the list of similar controversial murder cases.
The David Bain case has been in and out of the spotlight for the past 20 years - including this week with more dispute over claimed gunfire residue markings on Robin Bain's fingerprints.
The Privy Council quashed David's conviction in 2007 and he was acquitted at retrial in 2009. He served 13 years in jail and filed an application for compensation in 2010.
On Monday, Cabinet reportedly put the application for compensation on hold on David's request.
Other controversial murder cases which have involved several trials, appeals and/or inquiries include those of Scott Watson, who is serving a life sentence with a non-parole period of 17 years for the murders of Ben Smart and Olivia Hope in 1998; John Barlow, convicted of the 1994 murders of Gene and Eugene Thomas, who was paroled in 2009 after 15 years in prison; and Arthur Allan Thomas, who was granted a royal pardon and compensation after a Royal Commission of Inquiry found police planted evidence which led to him being wrongfully convicted in 1971 and imprisoned for the murders of neighbours Harvey and Jeanette Crewe. All maintain their innocence.
And then there is the case of Teina Pora, in prison for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett in 1992, over which there is enough doubt for the Police Association recently to call for an independent inquiry and for his lawyers to make a bid to have his case heard at the Privy Council.
Can New Zealanders have faith in the system to get it right? Prime Minister John Key says categorically yes, and that the latest Privy Council decision is part of the full court and appeals process, not an indication there is anything wrong with the earlier processes.
He also says a new review commission for remedying miscarriages of justice, such as is being called for by one of Lundy's lawyers, Malcolm Birdling, is not needed. But enough questions remain that would indicate discussion is needed at the highest level.
There are real concerns from a variety of groups and individuals about police handling of some cases, of the disparity of resources available to the Crown and the defence, and the time it takes to address miscarriages of justice.
The public, victims and their families, and the accused must have confidence police processes are robust, evidence sound, legal representation fair and accessible, and the judicial system beyond reproach.
While retrying the Lundy case will undoubtedly reopen wounds for the family and friends, and the financial costs of doing so are significant, to not do so is unacceptable for a freedom-loving, fair-minded society. As the late defence lawyer Greg King reportedly once said:
''I believe there is no greater sin that a state can commit than to wrongly convict and imprison an innocent person . . . we've got to get it right.''
