STORY: "Teina Pora conviction quashed," by reporters Ana Pearson and Paul Easton, published by stuff.co on March 3, 2015.
SUB-HEADING: "Teina Pora was convicted of the 1992 murder of Susan Burdett."
GIST: "The conviction of Teina Pora has been quashed, more than 20 years after he was jailed for murdering Susan Burdett in her Auckland home. The Privy Council, in London, delivered its ruling, saying an undiagnosed disorder meant Pora had "a strong tendency to maintain a position even when it was shown to be entirely untenable".........The Privy Council will now seek written submissions, within four weeks, on whether there should be a second re-trial. In delivering the judgement, Lord Kerr said the combination of Pora's "frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions with the diagnosis of FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) leads to the conclusion that reliance on his confessions gives rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice. "Therefore the Board deemed that his convictions must be quashed"......... Last year, the Privy Council agreed to hear the case in London. A five-judge panel, comprising New Zealand Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, Lord Hughes, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson, heard two days of evidence and arguments in November. A summary of the judgement released by the Privy Council said it permitted evidence from two experts, a clinical neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist, and refused to allow evidence of a third expert. The clinical neuropsychologist concluded that Pora fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of an alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder, "consistent with undiagnosed fetal alcohol spectrum disorder", it said. Her tests showed that Pora "tended to respond without due consideration, especially in complex situations" and "while he could not comprehend more complex words or sentences, he tended to respond as if he understood". People with Pora's condition "could not be considered as reliable informants", she said. The psychiatrist found Pora "had great difficulty in understanding questions put to him and remembering the content of the question when composing his reply", the summary said. Pora had "no demonstrable capacity for abstract thought and a strong tendency to maintain a position even when it was shown to be entirely untenable", it said. "The Board held that, since this evidence was not before the jury at either of [Pora's] trials, it meant that there was no explanation for his having confessed to the crimes. "In the absence of any explanation for giving a false confession, the intuitive reaction of a jury to a confession of guilt will be to assume that it is true. "The combination of [Pora's] frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions with the diagnosis of FASD leads to the conclusion that reliance on his confessions gives rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice."
During proceedings, Krebs said Pora admitted to the crime because he wanted a $50,000 police reward. Pora had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, had a low IQ and a mental age of nine or 10, Krebs said.......Other recent New Zealand cases that have gone to the Privy Council include those of David Bain and Mark Lundy. Associate Professor and Dean of the University of Canterbury's School of Law Chris Gallavin said the Privy Council's decision to uphold Pora's appeal was further evidence New Zealand needed a Criminal Cases Review Panel. "These high profile defeats are extremely expensive and ultimately damaging to the reputation of our justice system," he said. In the United Kingdom, a Criminal Cases Review Commission was established in 1997. The debate about a retrial was "remarkable", he said. "In my opinion there most certainly should not be [a re-trial]. The quashing of the conviction by the Privy Council should be deemed final."
The entire decision can be found at:
SUB-HEADING: "Teina Pora was convicted of the 1992 murder of Susan Burdett."
GIST: "The conviction of Teina Pora has been quashed, more than 20 years after he was jailed for murdering Susan Burdett in her Auckland home. The Privy Council, in London, delivered its ruling, saying an undiagnosed disorder meant Pora had "a strong tendency to maintain a position even when it was shown to be entirely untenable".........The Privy Council will now seek written submissions, within four weeks, on whether there should be a second re-trial. In delivering the judgement, Lord Kerr said the combination of Pora's "frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions with the diagnosis of FASD (fetal alcohol spectrum disorder) leads to the conclusion that reliance on his confessions gives rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice. "Therefore the Board deemed that his convictions must be quashed"......... Last year, the Privy Council agreed to hear the case in London. A five-judge panel, comprising New Zealand Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias, Lord Hughes, Lord Kerr, Lord Reed and Lord Toulson, heard two days of evidence and arguments in November. A summary of the judgement released by the Privy Council said it permitted evidence from two experts, a clinical neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist, and refused to allow evidence of a third expert. The clinical neuropsychologist concluded that Pora fulfilled the diagnostic criteria of an alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder, "consistent with undiagnosed fetal alcohol spectrum disorder", it said. Her tests showed that Pora "tended to respond without due consideration, especially in complex situations" and "while he could not comprehend more complex words or sentences, he tended to respond as if he understood". People with Pora's condition "could not be considered as reliable informants", she said. The psychiatrist found Pora "had great difficulty in understanding questions put to him and remembering the content of the question when composing his reply", the summary said. Pora had "no demonstrable capacity for abstract thought and a strong tendency to maintain a position even when it was shown to be entirely untenable", it said. "The Board held that, since this evidence was not before the jury at either of [Pora's] trials, it meant that there was no explanation for his having confessed to the crimes. "In the absence of any explanation for giving a false confession, the intuitive reaction of a jury to a confession of guilt will be to assume that it is true. "The combination of [Pora's] frequently contradictory and often implausible confessions with the diagnosis of FASD leads to the conclusion that reliance on his confessions gives rise to a risk of a miscarriage of justice."
During proceedings, Krebs said Pora admitted to the crime because he wanted a $50,000 police reward. Pora had been diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, had a low IQ and a mental age of nine or 10, Krebs said.......Other recent New Zealand cases that have gone to the Privy Council include those of David Bain and Mark Lundy. Associate Professor and Dean of the University of Canterbury's School of Law Chris Gallavin said the Privy Council's decision to uphold Pora's appeal was further evidence New Zealand needed a Criminal Cases Review Panel. "These high profile defeats are extremely expensive and ultimately damaging to the reputation of our justice system," he said. In the United Kingdom, a Criminal Cases Review Commission was established in 1997. The debate about a retrial was "remarkable", he said. "In my opinion there most certainly should not be [a re-trial]. The quashing of the conviction by the Privy Council should be deemed final."
The entire decision can be found at:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/66906763/teina-pora-conviction-quashed
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
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:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-charles-smith-award-presented-to_28.html
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com.
Harold Levy; Publisher; The Charles Smith Blog;
