Ian Binnie

Last updated

David Bain, a New Zealander, had spent 13 years in prison as a result of a conviction, found to be wrongful, of murdering his father, mother and three siblings in the family home in Dunedin. The case made sensational headlines in New Zealand and divided public opinion. Bain was defended by Michael Guest, an inexperienced Dunedin civil practitioner, later disbarred. David Bain claimed that he was out on his paper route when the killings occurred. The only alternative explanation was a murder suicide by the father who resided in a caravan adjacent to the murder scene. After years of fruitless appeals in New Zealand the case made its way to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, then New Zealand's highest court, which reversed the Court of Appeal of New Zealand because of what the senior British judges called a "substantial miscarriage of justice." At the re-trial, following 12 weeks of testimony, much of it fresh evidence, the jury in Christchurch took only half an hour to acquit David Bain of all charges.

After a 9-month investigation, [11] Binnie concluded that the original police investigation was incompetent, and that Bain was factually innocent on the ‘balance of probabilities’ and recommended he should be paid compensation. The findings of police ineptitude included burning down the family house where the murders occurred before any defence expert had been given the opportunity to conduct an independent investigation of the crime scene, and subsequently destroying the blood and tissue samples and other trial exhibits before the period for appeals expired. In the meantime the NZ Minister for Police, Judith Collins had been appointed Minister of Justice, and rejected the findings of Binnie's report, [12] saying she thought it lacked robust reasoning and showed a misunderstanding of New Zealand law. [13] This led to a public spat between the minister and Justice Binnie, who accused the new Minister of politicizing the process. [14] Without letting Bain's legal team know what was in Binnie's report, Collins said the government would be getting a second opinion on compensation, [15] a decision Bain supporters slammed as opinion shopping. [16] Binnie criticized Collins for consulting with the police and prosecutors while refusing to give a copy of his report to Bain's legal team and for leaking selective details of his report to the media. [17]

Colleagues in Canada rallied to his defence. The President of the Canadian Bar Association, Robert Brun, QC, said Binnie “is held in the highest esteem by both the legal community and the judiciary for his integrity, skill, and experience. He is praised for his honesty and intellect, and his reputation extends well beyond Canada's borders.” [18]

Minister Collins hired a former New Zealand trial judge, Robert Fisher, to criticize Binnie's report, which he did, stating that while the report was well organized and comprehensive, nevertheless in his view Binnie went beyond his mandate and authority, and had made errors in the legal tests applicable to the evidence. Fisher acknowledged that he had not read the evidence and recommended that a further report be undertaken. [19] [20]

Former Australian High Court Justice Ian Callinan was then commissioned by the New Zealand Government to conduct a fresh enquiry. [21] Callinan was not given either the Binnie Report or the Fisher Commentary but proceeded independently. He stated that the only issue before him was whether Bain had met the onus of establishing his factual innocence and concluded that he had not. Bain's lawyers threatened to have Callinan's report set aside on judicial review on the basis that Callinan had rejected Bain's version of events without, as Binnie had done, interviewing Bain personally. In the end, the New Zealand government made a payment to David Bain of $925,000 and the case was declared closed.

The Senate Expenses Inquiry

In 2015, former Justice Binnie was appointed by the Senate of Canada to investigate sensational claims by the Auditor General of Canada that more than a dozen Senators had misused Senate resources over a period of years. After hearings that extended over several months Binnie reported that while in some cases the Auditor General's criticisms were justified, in other cases the Auditor General's staff had misinterpreted the governing Senate rules and protocols and in particular had taken too narrow a view of what constituted proper Parliamentary business. The Binnie Report was accepted by the Senate and monies were reimbursed by errant Senators as appropriate.

Judgments

Due to Binnie's background in business and corporate law, he has typically written many of the judgments in those areas of law. However, he also wrote some leading judgments in appeals involving aboriginal rights, constitutional and administrative law and criminal law.

In his first term on the Court, Binnie participated in the Quebec Secession Reference (1998). In his 2019 autobiography, former Supreme Court judge Michel Bastarache revealed that the drafters of the "By the Court" judgement in the Quebec Secession Reference 1998 consisted of Gonthier, Binnie and Bastarache. [Michel Bastarache, Ce Que Je Voudrais Dire a Mes Enflants, Les Presses de l'Universite d'Ottawa 2019 at p 206]. In R vCampbell [1999] 1 SCR 565 Binnie wrote for the Court that in prosecutorial decisions the police are independent of political direction or control. In Whiten v Pilot Insurance [2002] 1 SCR 595, 2002 SCC 18, Binnie wrote for the court developed the principles governing an award of punitive damages in upholding a jury award of a $1 million punitive damages against an insurance company for bad faith rejection of a householder's fire insurance claim. Canada (House of Commons) v Vaid [2005] 1 SCR 667, 2005 SCC 30 addressed the limits of Parliamentary privilege. During his almost 14 years on the Court Binnie wrote a number of leading decisions on aboriginal rights including R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 456 which vindicated the treaty right of the Micmac people to gain a reasonable livelihood by fishing, Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada ( Minister of Canadian Heritage) [2005] 2 SCR 388, 2005 SCC 69, upholding constitutional protection for treaty rights and Lax Kw'alaams Indian Band v Canada (Attorney General) [2011] 3 SCR 535, 2011 SCC 56. which rejected a claimed aboriginal right to the commercial fishery in northwest British Columbia. Other judgments concerned freedom of religion [Syndicat Northcrest v Anselem [2004] 2 SCR 551, 2004 SCC 47, ] intellectual property [Free World Trust v Electro-Sante Inc [2000] 2 SCR 1024, 2000 SCC 66; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin v Boutiques Cliquot Ltee [2006] 1 SCR 824, 2006 SCC 23) arbitration law (Seidel v TELUS Communications Inc [2011] 1 SCR 531, 2011 SCC 15,) language rights (R v Caron [2011] 1 SCR 78, 2011 SCC 5) the environment ( British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd [2004] 2 SCR 74, 2004 SCC 38) and journalistic privilege (R v National Post [ 2010] 1 SCR 477; 2010 SCC 16 ).

In criminal law, Justice Binnie wrote leading judgments on similar fact evidence (R v Handy [2002] 2 SCR 908, 2002 SCC 56) unreasonable search and seizure ( R. v. Tessling [2004] 3 SCR 432, 2004 SCC 67; R v Kang Brown [2008] 1 SCR 456; 2008 SCC 18) and curbing excessive police powers (R v Clayton [2007 2 SCR 725, 2007 SCC 32). Over the years Justice Binnie dissented on a number of important due process issues, including R. v. Sinclair , 2010 SCC 35 in favour of an accused on the basis that the majority judgment too narrowly restricted the right of the accused to counsel under Section 10(b) of the Charter; [22] [23] R. v. Suberu [2009] 2 SCR 460; 2009 SCC 33 against a majority definition of detention which he thought overstated the average citizen's willingness to ignore a police direction, and R. v. Stone (1999) 2 SCR 290 where he dissented from the majority verdict of guilty on the basis that where an accused raises a plausible defense of automatism the onus should be on the prosecution to prove that the acts of the accused were voluntary and that the accused should not bear the affirmative burden of proving automatism on the balance of probabilities. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of Canada</span> Highest court of Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court in the judicial system of Canada. It comprises nine justices, whose decisions are the ultimate application of Canadian law, and grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts. The Supreme Court is bijural, hearing cases from two major legal traditions and bilingual, hearing cases in both official languages of Canada.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ian Callinan</span> Former Justice of the High Court of Australia

Ian David Francis Callinan AC KC is a former Justice of the High Court of Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy.

Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") is the section of the Constitution of Canada that lists what the Charter calls "fundamental freedoms" theoretically applying to everyone in Canada, regardless of whether they are a Canadian citizen, or an individual or corporation. These freedoms can be held against actions of all levels of government and are enforceable by the courts. The fundamental freedoms are freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bain family murders</span> 1994 multiple homicide in New Zealand

On 20 June 1994, Robin and Margaret Bain and three of their four children – Arawa, Laniet, and Stephen – were shot to death in Dunedin, New Zealand. The only suspects were David Cullen Bain, the eldest son and only survivor, and Robin Bain, the father. David Bain, aged 22, was charged with five counts of murder. In May 1995, he was convicted on each of the five counts and sentenced to mandatory life in prison with a minimum non-parole period of sixteen years.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as part of the Constitution of Canada, is a legal rights section that protects an individual's freedom from cruel and unusual punishments in Canada. The section has generated some case law, including the essential case R. v. Smith (1987), in which it was partially defined, and R. v. Latimer (2001), a famous case in which Saskatchewan farmer Robert Latimer protested that his long, mandatory minimum sentence for the murder of his disabled daughter was cruel and unusual.

<i>R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine [2003] 3 S.C.R. 571, 2003 SCC 74, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision that Parliament had the authority to criminalize the possession and trafficking of marijuana, and that power did not infringe on the section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc</i> Canadian Supreme Court case about trademark names

Mattel Inc v 3894207 Canada Inc[2006] 1 S.C.R. 772, 2006 SCC 22 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the infringement of famous trade-mark names. The Court found that Mattel Inc. could not enforce the use of their trade-marked name "BARBIE" against a restaurant named "Barbie's".

<i>Miron v Trudel</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Miron v Trudel, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 418 is a famous Supreme Court of Canada decision on equality rights under section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms where the Court found "marital status" was an analogous ground for discrimination. The Court held that an insurance benefit provided only to married couples discriminated against common-law couples.

<i>R v Neil</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Neil, [2002] 3 S.C.R. 631, 2002 SCC 70, is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on conflict of interests among lawyers. The Court held that both firms and lawyers have a fiduciary duty of loyalty to their clients and so a lawyer or firm cannot represent a client whose interests may be adverse to the interests of another client unless there is consent and a reasonable belief that the interests will not be adverse. This greatly expanded the old rules of conflict of interest which required actual knowledge of confidential information before a lawyer was in conflict.

<i>Dunsmuir v New Brunswick</i> Canadian Supreme Court case

Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190 was, prior to Canada v Vavilov, the leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the topic of substantive review and standards of review. Dunsmuir is notable for combining the reasonableness (simpliciter) and the patent unreasonableness standards of review into a single reasonableness standard.

<i>R v Kang-Brown</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Kang-Brown, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 456, 2008 SCC 18, is a constitutional decision by the Supreme Court of Canada on the limits of police powers for search and seizure. The Court found that police do not have the right to perform a sniffer-dog search of public spaces when such search is not specifically authorized by statute. In this case, a suspect's section 8 rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") were violated when a police officer stopped him at a bus station and sniffer-dog searched his bag finding drugs in his possession.

Canadian criminal law allows for a common law defence of necessity. Necessitas non habet legem; "Necessity knows no law." This well-known maxim reflects the theoretical basis of the defence of necessity: that in dire circumstances of looming peril, the claims of positive law seems to weaken. This controversial common law or judge-made defence has only been firmly recognized in Canadian law since 1984. It is recognized in Canada as a defence for crimes committed in urgent situations of clear and imminent peril in which the accused has no safe avenue of escape or legal way out of the situation.

<i>Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co, 2002 SCC 18, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 595 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of punitive damages in contract. The case related to the oppressive conduct of an insurance company in dealing with the policyholders' claim following a fire. According to the majority, "[t]his was an exceptional case that justified an exceptional remedy."

Michael Moldaver is a former Canadian judge. He was a puisne justice on the Supreme Court of Canada from his 2011 appointment by former Prime Minister Stephen Harper until his retirement in 2022. Before his elevation to the nation's top court, he served as a judge at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal for Ontario for over 20 years. A former criminal lawyer, Moldaver is considered an expert in both Canadian criminal law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

<i>Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Canadian Union of Public Employees v Ontario (Minister of Labour), 2003 SCC 29, is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on arbitration and bias in administrative law. The court held that it was patently unreasonable for the Minister of Labour to appoint retired judges as arbitrators in labour disputes without considering their expertise in labour relations under the Hospital Labour Disputes Arbitrations Act.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Arbitration Place</span> International Arbitration Facility and Legal Centre

Arbitration Place is an internationally affiliated arbitration facility and legal centre located in the Bay-Adelaide Centre, in Toronto, Canada.

<i>Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Euro-Excellence Inc v Kraft Canada Inc, 2007 SCC 37, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 20, is a Supreme Court of Canada judgment on Canadian copyright law, specifically on the issue of indirect infringement and its application to parallel importation. Kraft Canada sued Euro-Excellence Inc. for copyright infringement due to their importation of Côte d’Or and Toblerone chocolate bars from Europe into Canada. A majority of the court found that the copyright claim could not succeed, although they split on whether the claim failed due to the rights of an exclusive licensee or due to the scope of copyright law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Robert P. Armstrong</span> Canadian lawyer and retired judge

Robert Patrick Armstrong is a Canadian lawyer and retired judge. He served on the Court of Appeal for Ontario from 2002 until his retirement in 2013. Before serving on the bench, Armstrong was a partner at Torys and was lead counsel in the Dubin Inquiry on steroid use in Canadian sports. After leaving the bench, Armstrong joined Arbitration Place, a Canadian group specializing in alternative dispute resolution.

References

  1. ↑ Supreme Court of Canada (April 12, 2011), The Honourable Mr. Justice William Ian Corneil Binnie, archived from the original on December 28, 2012, retrieved May 22, 2011
  2. ↑ Makin, Kirk (2011-09-23). "A rare look at the inner-workings of the Supreme Court of Canada". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2021-12-28. Widely seen as a towering intellect who is arguably the country's premier judge, he spoke with the easy candour of a man who has spent his career as a renowned advocate.
  3. ↑ Makin, Kirk (2011-05-13). "The coming conservative court: Harper to reshape judiciary". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2021-12-28. While Judge Charron was conservative when it came to criminal justice issues and the Charter, Judge Binnie, a skilled jurist in every area of the law, was one of the few liberal voices on the court.
  4. ↑ Boisvert, Yves (2011-12-19). "Ian Binnie quitte "le grand théâtre"". La Presse (in French). Retrieved 2021-12-28. Ian Binnie, peut-être le juge le plus influent au Canada dans la dernière décennie, a accroché son hermine à la Cour suprême au mois d'octobre.
  5. ↑ MacCharles, Tonda (October 17, 2011). "Supreme Court appointments highlight a secret process". The Star. Toronto. Archived from the original on June 22, 2012. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
  6. ↑ "2 Supreme Court of Canada justices to retire". CBC News. 2011-05-13. Archived from the original on 2011-05-15. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
  7. ↑ "Supreme Court of Canada News Release (on retirement of Binnie and Charron)". LexUM in partnership with the Supreme Court of Canada. 2011-05-13. Archived from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2011-05-13.
  8. ↑ "Canadian judge to assess Bain's claim for compensation | Scoop News". Archived from the original on 2011-11-17. Retrieved 2011-11-16.
  9. ↑ "The Supreme Court's retired, but hardly retiring, Ian Binnie". The Globe and Mail. Toronto. June 15, 2012. Archived from the original on March 15, 2017. Retrieved September 1, 2017.
  10. ↑ Melnitzer, Julius (10 April 2012). "Ian Binnie joins Lenczner Slaght, Arbitration Place". Financial Post. Archived from the original on 2012-05-03. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
  11. ↑ "News & media | New Zealand Ministry of Justice". Archived from the original on 2016-02-04. Retrieved 2015-11-22.
  12. ↑ "Bain judge hits back at Collins". 3 News NZ. December 12, 2012. Archived from the original on February 23, 2013.
  13. ↑ "Bain report lacking – Collins". 3 News NZ. December 11, 2012. Archived from the original on October 6, 2013. Retrieved December 11, 2012.
  14. ↑ Binnie hits back at Bain report critics Archived 2012-12-14 at the Wayback Machine NZ Herald 12 December 2012
  15. ↑ "Govt to get second opinion on Bain". 3 News NZ. December 11, 2012. Archived from the original on February 23, 2013.
  16. ↑ "Govt accused of Bain double standard". 3 News NZ. December 12, 2012. Archived from the original on February 23, 2013.
  17. ↑ "Ian Binnie's full statement". 3 News NZ. December 12, 2012. Archived from the original on April 14, 2013. Retrieved December 11, 2012.
  18. ↑ Bain breaks his silence Archived 2012-12-15 at the Wayback Machine NZ Herald
  19. ↑ "News & media | New Zealand Ministry of Justice". Archived from the original on 2016-03-04. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  20. ↑ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2014-07-24. Retrieved 2015-11-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  21. ↑ "No word on new David Bain report from Justice Minister Amy Adams". 8 October 2015. Archived from the original on 2020-09-26. Retrieved 2015-11-21.
  22. ↑ canlii.org: R. v. Sinclair, 2010 SCC 35, (2010) 2 SCR 310 Archived 2012-02-21 at the Wayback Machine
  23. ↑ Kirk Makin: No right to counsel during interrogation: top court Archived 2017-04-23 at the Wayback Machine The Globe and Mail October 8, 2010
  24. ↑ McSherry, Bernadette (2000). "R v Stone [1999] 2 SCR 290". Psychiatry, Psychology and Law. 7 (2): 279–283. doi:10.1080/13218710009524994. S2CID   146471952.
Ian Binnie
CC KC
Justice Ian Binnie-2017-cropped.jpg
Justice Binnie in 2017
Puisne Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada
In office
January 8, 1998 –October 21, 2011
The Lamer court (1990–2000)
1990–91
1991–92
1992–97
1997–98
1998–99
1999–2000
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.