Tuesday, October 8, 2013

Mark Lundy: (Aftermath 1): New Zealand; Privy Council ruling reopens calls for an independent commission to review possible miscarriages of justice where recourse in the courts has been exhausted. 3 News.

PUBLISHER'S VIEW: (Editorial);  One of the  signs  that the current system for remedying miscarriages of justice in New Zealand is broken is chronological; Although Mark Lundy's appeal of his conviction was dismissed on August 13 2002, he was not in a position to launch an appeal to the Privy Council for another 10 years. As the Privy Council judges explained in their recently released decision: ""Difficulties in funding an appeal, the lack of legal aid and problems associated with persuading counsel to act Pro Bono combined to prevent an application for permission to appeal being made until November 2012." New Zealand clearly has a problem in its criminal justice system which cries out to be remedied by establishment of an independent review system within its  borders. All eyes will now be on decisions  which will be taken by the country's Attorney General.  First:  If, as is likely, the government orders it a new trial, will it agree to his release on a reasonable bail?  Second, if he is to be put through a new trial, will Mark Lundy be provided all of the funds he requires to  retain counsel and call the scientific evidence necessary to establish his defence.  Third: Will the government stop wallowing in  its denials and set up a parliamentary committee   to create an independent review body, similar, perhaps, to one recently established in South Australia. If the New Zealand government has learned anything from this case, the answer to all of these questions should be "yes".

Harold Levy;  Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;

STORY: "Call for justice review committee for miscarriages," by reporter Brook Sabin, published by 3 News on October 8, 2013.

GIST: "The Privy Council's judgement in the Mark Lundy case has reopened debate about how New Zealand deals with potential miscarriages of justice. Lundy's legal team says the current system is broken. Lundy's lawyer spent three years getting the case to the Privy Council. But lawyer Malcolm Birdling says it shouldn't have taken so long and New Zealand needs an independent commission that can deal with controversial cases quicker and cheaper. "It really is essential going forward," say Mr Birdling. "It is something New Zealand has waited far too long for." It's not just Lundy, supporters of other high-profile cases such as Arthur Allan Thomas, Rex Haig, Peter Ellis, Teina Pora and David Bain are saying the same. "If we had one of those commissions earlier, Bain would never have spent all the time he spent in prison," says Mr Bain's lawyer, Michael Reed QC."
The entire story can be found at:

THE COMPLETE DECISION: (All fifty pages); Must read! HL.



Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.

I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located  near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.

The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:


Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:


I look foward to hearing from readers at:


Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog.