Articles

QC criticises officials' role

Defendent's only interview shown

Part 1
Part 2

Police suspect missing fisherman murdered

Case found; man to stand trial for murder

No Blood Found on Antares

Positive over Royal Pardon

Haig's Claims rejected

Fight to clear name will continue

Inmates Charged

Conviction Appealed

Article Links

The Listener - Something to Prove by Bruce Ansley, September 27-October 3 2003, Vol 190 No 3307

Investigate, Sep 03 - JAILBAIT

Extract:

When court appeals have been exhausted, the remaining avenue currently open to the aggrieved is to the Governor-General. The petition is assessed by Justice Ministry officials and an ad hoc system of referring it to an outside authority, usually a QC, has developed. The system is unwieldy and, according to Nigel Hampton, QC, unfair.

Hampton acts for Rex Haig and lodged a second mercy plea with the Governor-General in 2001.

Act MP Stephen Franks told Parliament that the central allegation in the petition was that Haig had been convicted of killing his crewman Mark Roderique on the testimony of his (Haig's) nephew, David Hogan. But, said Franks, Hogan had portrayed himself to friends and former associates as the real killer, had arranged a second murder to silence a man to whom he confessed, and was stated in the petition to have told others that he had framed his uncle for the murder. Police were aware of two of the alleged admissions before Haig was charged.

Grounds for doubt? This crucial body of evidence was scrutinised by two officials and later by John Billingham, QC, and given the thumbs-down in what Hampton claims was a cursory way. He has now lodged a second petition, with more analysis and argument. It is going through the same process, but is being scrutinised, more fully, by Colin Carruthers, QC.

More to come...

comment on this page

Terms & Conditions

By viewing the pages of this website, you acknowledge that you have read and accepted these disclaimers. The information published on this site is based on media and other publically available information and is intended only as an introduction to the Rex Haig case. While every endeavour has been made to supply accurate information, errors and omissions may occur. The operators/owners of Rexhaig.com and/or Rex Haig do not accept any liability for any loss or damage which may directly or indirectly result from any opinion, information, representation or omission, whether negligent or otherwise, contained on this site. Any requests for removal of allegedly defamatory material or notifications of error will be considered upon request. Changes or updates to the content of this site may occur without notice. The owners/operators of rexhaig.com acknowledge and accept the rights of third party providers and subsequently make all efforts to provide full references to newspaper articles and other published material. Where an article has been published without the express permission of a third party, that third party may request the article be removed from rexhaig.com. The owners/operators of Rexhaig.com owns all copyright and all other intellectual property rights in this site. Everything on this site is copyrighted unless otherwise noted. Rexhaig.com welcomes the use of this site for your non-commercial use only provided that you retain all copyright, trademark and other proprietary notices contained in the content. We advise that you may not copy or display for redistribution to third parties or for commercial purposes any portion of this site without rexhaig.com's express permission. Rexhaig.com operators/owners and/or Rex Haig are not responsible for, and makes no representations, warranties or conditions concerning, the contents of any linked site or any link contained in a linked site. Rex Haig.com provides links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement, investigation or verification of the linked site. This website is governed by, and is to be interpreted in accordance with, the laws of New Zealand.