Evidence puts wonky system in the dock

JUSTICE is on trial.

The quashing of the murder conviction against Teina Pora last week follows the "not guilty" verdict in David Bain's retrial, while Mark Lundy is now in the fourth week of a retrial that could see his murder conviction overturned.

There are other examples of how the justice system we put so much blind faith in has apparently got it wrong ... go back to Arthur Alan Thomas, if you like.

In some cases, dubious police tactics have been the problem, with detectives more interested in getting a conviction than getting to the truth.

Pora falls into this category. Anyone who has watched the video of his police interview when he could not describe the woman he allegedly raped and murdered, nor find the property where the crime took place would seriously doubt the reliability of his "confession". Yet the police thought this was their trump card.

After 21 years in prison, it took the Privy Council in London to point out the blindingly obvious.

It seems people often quickly make up their minds about the guilt or innocence of the accused in high-profile trials.

Many Kiwis are convinced that David Bain did it - or that he didn't do it - and they have never been near a High Court trial.

Likewise, people have a view on Lundy. They see him in the TV clips, read a couple of headlines and imperceptibly an opinion begins to form. Such is human nature.

Having served on a couple of juries, I was struck how people interpreted evidence to suit their prejudices. What one saw as damning, another saw as evidence of innocence.

In short, the jury system is flawed.

Now is the time for a review of our justice system, with judges-only trials and an independent body to review potentially unsafe verdicts among matters to look at.