1. Corporal Willie Apiata, Victoria Cross recipient

2. Kevin Milne, presenter of Fair Go

3. Sir Peter Snell, scientist and former Olympian

4. Margaret Mahy, children’s author

5. John Kirwan, former All Black and and mental illness spokesman

6. Sir Colin Meads, former All Black

7. Sir Peter Jackson, film director

8. Alison Holst, celebrity chef and author

9. Irene van Dyk, netballer

10. Valerie Vili, Olympic shotputter

The Herald treated this list like it was a big deal, as did other media. I can’t resist noting how silly all this ‘most trusted’ stuff is. First place was taken out by Corporal Willie Apiata of the New Zealand SAS. Now I have nothing against Apiata and I concede that his winning a Victoria Cross for bravery under fire in Afghanistan suggests that he is a courageous professional soldier but I ask you what do I, or for that matter most New Zealanders, really know about him? All I suspect we know is that he (apparently) looks good with his shirt off, though he could stand to lose the mo, and he is part of a special forces unit that performs secret and covert military operations. Appearances aside, this means he is good at keeping secrets, offering deceit about what he is doing, sneaking about and killing people. I am not saying this is wrong, in the context of military operations against an enemy such actions are probably very commendable but, apart from this, his life and identity is, justifiably, shrouded in secrecy.

When we go down the list we see that number three is former Olympian, Sir Peter Snell, number five is former All Black, John Kirwan, number six is former All Black Sir Colin Meads, number nine is netballer Irene van Dyke, number ten is Valerie Vili, Olympic shot putter. Now again I do not know these people, I have have nothing against them but that’s the point. I don’t know them. Why does the fact that one can throw a heavy ball at the olympics, another is good at putting a ball through a hoop, a couple carried an egg-shaped ball past the Wallabies and another can run really fast mean that they are any more trust-worthy than anyone else?

Of course, in John Kirwan’s case we also know that he used to suffer from a mental illness and is on TV commercials encouraging people suffering from such illnesses that they can get help and get through it. This is commendable but why does it provide any reason for thinking someone more trustworthy than someone else? I played rugby at high school, I enjoy watching the All Blacks but I have no illusion that merely making the cut and being asked to play by Graham Henry means that you have a trustworthy character or are more trustworthy than some other person. It only means you are good at rugby.

Similarly, childrens author Margret Mahy comes in at number four. Again I enjoy some of her stories but that’s all I know, she writes good children’s stories. Celebrity chief Alison Holst comes in eighth (apart from the fact that her son Simon Holst’s recipes get cooked far more often in our house than hers do) I ask how does being a good cook make you more trustworthy than anyone else?

Then there is Sir Peter Jackson at number seven. Apparently, if you make movies about giant apes or with really cool battle scenes involving orcs, that means you are somehow higher in the trustworthy stakes.

The only person which could appear to have reasons for being trustworthy is second place getter Kevin Milne of Fair Go. Milne has made a career fronting a TV show which exposes unjust buisness practises and advocating those oppressed by such practises, often having to be on the brunt of a bit of abuse from some rather angry people. Given this it is understandable that he is considered trustworthy. Now I myself and Madeleine know people who have been accused of unfair practices by Fair Go and let’s just say the facts are not always allowed to get in the way of a good story. However, these issues aside, shouldn’t people be a little bit more discerning about their sources here? True when you watch Fair Go Milne et al appear to be on the side of right, championing the little guy against the big bad business but Fair Go is a television show, the information that we receive about the cases it deals with is the information the editors of Fair Go choose to put on air. It is not like we get to hear the other side of the story through the programme. I suppose if you routinely believe X is true because the media says it is then you might find this understandable…

This all seems very dumb. If I was hiring a baby sitter and the only thing I knew about the three applicants was that between them one had shot some Taliban soldiers, one had scored a few tries and can write good recipes I would be unimpressed.

It was also interesting to see that Joe Karam rated lower than A J Hackett. Does that mean that if I jump off a bridge with a rubber band around my legs I can persuade a greater segment of the population that David Bain is innocent?

So “New Zealand’s Most Trusted People”? A better headline would be “Survey Shows New Zealanders are Extremely Gullible.” You might think I am being harsh but one only has to read on to induce despair. After all, in the most trusted professions list we find that politicans are in the bottom three just below prostitutes and above telemarketers. Let’s not forget that the current politicans are the people the New Zealand public vote into power, entrust with ensuring justice and managing a significant portion of their hard earned wages and salaries. Given that we apparently choose to entrust one of the least trustworthy groups of people with this task what else could that possibly make us but stupid?

I suppose, however, people are not really terribly concerned about this. After all, justice is not really that important. People are far to busy watching the All Blacks, the netball, writing recipes and watching giant apes battle giant dinosaurs. Bread and circuses anyone?

However, when the case has been decided, I have no moral qualms about examining the court’s report on the case and seeing what I think. As a law student it is pretty easy for me to gain a copy of a decision or a report on a case but it is also easy for the public; you just have to know where to look. So, here are three methods of gaining copies of the court’s judicial report on the case online to save you having to navigate a law library or even leave your computer:

Judicial Decisions Online publishes all New Zealand Supreme Court, Court of Appeal (post 1 January 2003) and all High Court (post August 2005) decisions, provided they are not subject to limited restrictions, following delivery to the parties but not earlier than three days after the decisions are given. Simply search for the case – Bain, High Court, Christchurch, etc..

Courts of New Zealand publishes judicial decisions of public interest and you can enter your email address and subscribe to be notified when new decisions are added. Visit the site, click on “from the courts” click on “judicial decisions” click on “judicial decisions of public interest” – the subscription box in in the left hand column.

The New Zealand Legal Information Institute is a joint project of the University of Otago Faculty of Law, the Victoria University of Wellington Faculty of Law and the Australasian Legal Information Institute. NZLII is not updated as quickly as the other sites but given the interest in the David Bain trial I would expect the judgement to go up pretty shortly after it becomes available.

RELATED POST:
David Bain 111 Call “I Shot the Prick” – Court Decisions Available Online UPDATED ]]> http://www.mandm.org.nz/2009/06/how-to-find-the-reported-judicial-decision-on-the-david-bain-re-trial.html/feed 3