Safety valve for justice system

Privy Council's quashing of Teina Pora's conviction for the murder of Susan Burdett in 1992 cannot help but raise further concerns about New Zealand's justice system.

It comes after the council allowed for retrials for David Bain and Mark Lundy, and continued considerable disquiet about the convictions of Scott Watson (Marlborough Sounds homicides) and Peter Ellis (Christchurch Civis creche).

In Mr Pora's case, there might not even be a retrial.

The panel of the judicial committee of the Privy Council - New Zealand Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias and four Law Lords - were clear in their judgement.

Central to Mr Pora's convictions - he was tried twice - were his confessions.

But these were unreliable. In fact, in giving the judgement, Lord Kerr said Mr Pora's explanations in his confessions were ''radically inconsistent''.

''Pora's accounts are strewn with inconsistencies, contradictions, implausibility and vagueness, at various times his replies to questions are halting, hesitant, incoherent and bizarre.''

It was not as if police bullied a confession. ''They were, if anything, fastidiously correct in their treatment of him,'' Lord Kerr said.

But, disabled by foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, Mr Pora at 17 seems to have wanted to please, wished for the reward offered for the solving of the murder and was, according to one expert, thinking and acting like a child of 8 to 10.

Lord Kerr points out how people, whether they be on juries or in other justice system roles, have a natural tendency to accept confessions.

They should, however, be wary because - for various reasons - false confessions are all too common.

What is disappointing, at least in hindsight, is that experienced police officers did not themselves question more why so much of what Mr Pora said did not make sense and why his story kept changing.

It is perhaps all too easy for police to believe they have their man (or woman) and not keep their minds sufficiently open to other options.

This seems especially so when, after DNA testing showed Malcolm Rewa committed the rape of Miss Burdett, there was a second trial.

The law lords, interestingly, decided not to take into account what would seem like additional common sense conclusions about Rewa and Mr Pora.

Why, for example, would a senior member of a rival gang, whose method as a serial rapist was to act alone, take along a young associate whom he hardly knew?

It was this sort of inconsistency that spurred at least one policeman to have doubts and helped prompt the process towards the Privy Council appeal.

The reason the council decided to delay a retrial decision was because submissions on the issue had not been presented.

Such is the strength of their decision, however, it is hard to see a retrial being necessary.

In this, the Pora case differs from David Bain's appeal or the Lundy matter.

There is, now, near unanimity on Mr Pora's innocence. More than just doubts about the convictions were raised, and Mr Pora must have a strong cause for compensation.

The deans of the University of Otago Law Faculty, Mark Henaghan, and the University of Canterbury's School of Law, Chris Gallavin, say the case further highlights New Zealand's need for a Criminal Cases Review Panel.

Despite the rejection of the idea yesterday by Justice Minister Amy Adams, such a panel does need to be seriously considered.

The current legal appeal process is, on the evidence of the likes of the Pora case, failing to protect against miscarriages of justice, even if the system as a whole is ''really good''.

New Zealand is also so small that, as Prof Henaghan has said, ''it's hard to be totally independent''.

A panel has worked well in the United Kingdom, and a New Zealand panel would need some overseas appointees.

The panel would be restricted to a few cases but it would have wider scope than the courts into looking at fresh matters and having more flexibility.

As Associate Prof Gallavin said, a court of appeal can only work with the building blocks it is given, and often in difficult cases these are broken or missing.

What with Arthur Allan Thomas, David Dougherty, David Bain, Rex Haig and now Teina Pora, reasonable doubts are regularly raised about the justice system.

With the Privy Council being phased out, a replacement ''safety valve'' would seem to be required.

Add a Comment