Thus spake the Privy Council on May 10, 2007, in a decision that quashed David Bain's convictions for the murder of his mother and father and three siblings.
In its decision, the council said that "a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred" and recommended a retrial.
On June 21, 2007, in the wake of an emotive bail hearing at the High Court in Christchurch which saw Bain released from custody after serving 13 years, the New Zealand Solicitor-general, David Collins, confirmed a retrial would take place.
Subsequent to a series of pre-trial hearings, the Christchurch trial is scheduled to begin on February 16, 2009.
In the frenzy surrounding each of these events - in part both created and participated in by elements of the media - the disinterested observer could be forgiven for believing that Bain had been declared innocent.
This, of course, is not the case, but his defence team might have been expected to be at least initially jubilant given that a retrial was what they had sought from the Privy Council in the first place.
In the latest foray in this long-running saga, it has been revealed that the defence team, apparently in receipt of new evidence, intends once again to file papers with the Privy Council, this time seeking an outright acquittal, thereby obviating the requirement for a new trial.
The defence's position appears to have shifted from one of pushing for a new hearing to establish their client's innocence, to having him acquitted without the requirement of a trial where any new evidence, either Crown or defence, can be publically heard and scrutinised.
Following a three-week trial, on May 29, 1995, David Bain was found guilty of the murders of his father Robin (58), his mother Margaret (50), his sisters Arawa (19) and Laniet (18) and younger brother Stephen (14) in the early hours of June 20, 1994.
On June 21, 1995, Justice Neil Williamson sentenced him to life imprisonment with a 16-year non-parole period.
Since then, the case has had an active appeals history.
An initial appeal to the New Zealand Court of Appeal was dismissed in 1995.
The Privy Council decided against hearing his appeal the following year, and in 1997 the Police Complaints Authority reviewed the police investigation into the Bain family murders, concluding it had been satisfactory.
Bain later sought a pardon from the Governor-General, and between 1998 and 2000, the Ministry of Justice held a further inquiry.
This also failed to establish a miscarriage of justice.
That might have been the end of it, but then Minister of Justice, Phil Goff, advised the Governor-General to seek the Court of Appeal's view on four items of evidence.
The Court of Appeal did so and found there was sufficient reason to reconsider the case, which it did in 2003.
The appeal was dismissed, but Bain and his team tried for the second time with the Privy Council which, in 2006, agreed to hear his appeal against the verdict of the Court of Appeal.
This hearing took place in March 2007 and delivered a comprehensive review of certain aspects of the evidence that it said were either overlooked or needed to be reconsidered.
That is exactly the opportunity now afforded the defence team in the February trial.
It is not yet known whether the Privy Council will accede to this latest intervention, particularly in view of the fact the primary recommendation of its earlier judgement - a new trial - has been well advanced.
The Bain case has been a polarising affair with passionate adherents on either side.
It may well be that for the most ardent of these, a new trial will now settle very little, so set have they become in their views.
We do not yet know the evidential basis of the new approach to the Privy Council - and even if it were known, to discuss it would be prejudicial in light of the forthcoming trial.
But there have also been disquietening noises on the expense of another full hearing.
In a radio interview last week, Michael Reed, QC, appeared to head at least momentarily down this path.
It is one this newspaper eschews, and a great many New Zealanders would similarly surely reject.
Trials are inordinately costly, particularly in such high profile, contentious, cases.
But the fact remains that in the early hours of the morning of June 20, 1994, five members of one family died violent and tragic deaths.
For confidence to be maintained, it behoves the justice system to follow through on the original recommendations of the Privy Council and proceed with the retrial.
The people require a final verdict, and the question of cost should not enter the equation.
