The man accused of murdering his wife and abandoning his daughter at a Melbourne railway station has applied for taxpayer funds for a private investigator to research the backgrounds of jurors in his trial.
Police allege Nai Yin Xue, 55, strangled 27-year-old wife An An Liu in Auckland in September, 2007, then stuffed her body in a car boot before flying to Australia and dumping his three-year-old daughter, Qian Xun Xue dubbed Pumpkin by media at the time at a train station.
Xue's murder trial is due to start next month at Auckland's High Court.
Xue's legal team headed by high-profile barrister Chris Comeskey have confirmed an application was filed with the Legal Services Agency (LSA) last Friday for funding to investigate jurors.
Comeskey has employed the services of Verdix Investigations, the first registered New Zealand company specialising in the practice of jury vetting.
While the professional researching of jurors is a common practice in America, it has not been used until now in this country.
If Comeskey's application is approved by the LSA, jury vetting could become commonplace. An estimated 90 percent of all jury trials involve legal-aid funding.
LSA senior communications advisor Bronwyn Bannister told Sunday News: "The application ... you refer to has just been received by the agency and a decision has not yet been made.
"We do not have a specific policy about the granting of aid for jury vetting and are not aware of having granted aid for this in the past. Any application to grant aid for jury vetting would be considered by one of the agency's specialist advisers, who are experienced lawyers."
Verdix Investigations head Stephen Cook said more scrutiny should be applied to the jury-selection process.
Apart from raising serious concerns about the Americanisation of our criminal justice system, the whole lagal aid system seems farcical at times. Sure, those accused of serious crimes are entitled to a comtetent legal defence, but a taxpayer-funded Rolls-Royce defence? We're far, far less sure about that. And it's not as though Nai Yin Xue was a man without means; he was able to purchase return tickets to Australia and a ticket to the USA at very short notice. He was reported as being a "successful businessman" prior to the death of his wife. Should we, the taxpayers, be having to pick up his tab?
It's quite a dilemma. We hope that the Legal Services Agency does NOT set a precedent for Nai Yin Xue, as it could prove to be hugely costly to all of us in the longer term.
7 comments:
The use of the words Comskey and Rolls Royce service in the same sentence is a bit of a worry. The term oxymoron springs to mind. The Court of Appeal have had a bit to say recently, adversely, on Mr Comesky's representation of clients.
But like you i have a cocnern about the americanisation of the legal services and the reporting of same in the media.
Fair enough Anon. I wasn't actually referring to Comesky as a Rolls-Royce lawyer; rather the reference was to the bells-and-whistles nature of the defence itself.
Add this to the crap that is Legal Aid.
Gang members facing fines for wearing patches in Wanganui's Victoria Avenue are taking legal action to stop Work and Income from making deductions from their benefits.
They have also lodged a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, claiming the ban on their patches and associated insignia unfairly punishes Wanganui members and their partners and children.
"No-one's paid a fine and no-one's going to," an affected member told The Wanganui Times yesterday. "The police can't do this. They can't take our patches when we haven't done anything wrong. These patches belong to us."
The members taking the action, who are understood to be on benefits and may qualify for legal aid, have hired a lawyer to gain an injunction and fight the ban.
Two weeks ago members filed their complaint with the Human Rights Commission.
Though the fines were due for payment this month none were willing to pay, the affected member said.
One partner claimed her nine-year-old son had watched in tears as his father was arrested on Victoria Avenue last week.
Three gang members arrested in the confrontation appeared in Wanganui District Court yesterday on joint display of insignia charges.
Wanganui Council's tough new national policy, designed to sidestep the Bill of Rights, follows a two-year legal battle to get gang insignia banned.
Gang members have been angry about losing their patches to police but say they are easy enough to replace.
"It's a waste of their time and our money, oops, sorry, that's your money, aye?" a laughing member told the Times.
posted by Lindsay @ 7:33 AM
And this;
The women (attached to gang members) that Housing New Zealand are attempting to evict from a Taita street are taking legal action. We ain't going anywhere, they say.
They are apparently all on benefits so will qualify for legal aid. A certificate from Work and Income showing their gross income is less than $20,000 will take care of that. Although legal aid is supposed to be a loan it will likely be written off in this case. There is no owned property to make a charge against.
So the taxpayer is funding these women's benefits and their accommodation, both of which have been abused. They get away with the first abuse because of a legal ruling which defines their relationships as 'not in the nature of marriage'. Then, when they decide to fight the consequences of the secondary property abuse, the taxpayer has to foot their legal fees.
Just how far removed is all of this from a 'safety' net?
And in wades Parekura Horomia in his shadow Maori Minister role;
"I'm concerned about the effect on the women and children. Housing NZ have really really rushed this."
What a first-class apologist for manipulators this man is. These tenants and their partners have society over a barrel. They are not victims and they are not clueless. Children are hostages to and guarantors of their chosen lifestyles. It's a pig of a mess made worse by weak leaders like Horomia.
Again - well said. Perhaps we should be grateful that 20 years of benefit abuse ended in Napier yesterday; also that Jan Molenaar saved the taxpayer the expense of a legal-aid funded trial and the cost of a lenghty period of incarceration.
Our Legal system has evolved into such a complex complicated state that I feel the end of the jury system must be nigh. One only has to look at the current Bain trial with the processions of expert witnesses contested testimony,procedural wrangles and delays. Halfway through and one juror down, will the other eleven last until the end. If not what happens, Start again? I understand there are seven women on the Jury,now women have admirable traits especially around the bedroom and kitchen, but making objective assessment on the basis of facts presented, rather than the appearance, dress, and personality of the major players, Not in my experience...The Bain retrial may be an extreme example,but these increasingly long complex Jury Trials are becoming the rule rather than the exception. My old mate Chris C realises like most lawyers that dredging the underclass for Jurors enhances the chances of acquittal against the logic of the case.
I might add that in another life time I was a member of a legal aid committee. An appplication for funding for jury vetting would not have passed go.
As a lawyer, I make two observations:
Get rid of jury trials. The so-called appeal to the common sense of lay people is misplaced. It is only a safety net in the cases where the police misguidedly charge people with crimes while defending themselves against criminals.
Scrap legal aid in favour of a public defenders office.
Post a Comment