The Jury

Questions must be raised over the impartiality of the jury in the trial. Everyone has the right to a fair and impartial trial. Did Rex Haig get that right? Read on and decide for yourself.

Connection between Police and Jury

The jury foreman's brother was a senior detective inspector with Auckland CIB and surely was aware of the Invercargill trial. Could the foreman have had undue reasons to lean to the crown case.

The Media Influence

The victim was a member of the Roderique family, well established in Invercargill and respected known associations with the port, fishing industries, business and civic affairs.

This might suggest that the Jury would have reasonable pressure to deliver a conviction in this case. Evidence of intimidation and pressure would be provided and is approached further in this discussion.

Rex Haig and others had been facing charges at Invercargill District Court for the crime of conspiricy to defraud, relating to a paua poaching operation. During this time the Southland Times reported, often sensational headlines relating to this trial. Prior to the Murder trial, which commenced on the 24th October 1995 at Invercargill and the Jury being selected from Invercargill, most readers of the Southland Times would have acquired the knowledge of Rex Haig's involvement in the Paua conspiracy trial and the crown's claimed motive for the murder of Mark Roderique.

The Invercargill result was a hung Jury in the case of the Paua consipiricy. It wasent until the conspiricy trial was moved to Christchurch that a innocent decision was reached.

While Rex Haig was found innocent of consipiring to smuggle paua, this public exposure and ordeal for Haig would have dramatic consequences on his health and the impartiality of the Jury in the Murder trial that would follow. Rex Haig was advised not to give evidence in the trial, which would later be considered an enormous mistake.

The connection between the Jury and the Key Crown Witness

The father of the crown's key witness worked at a local Aluminium smelter with three members of the jury. Another jury member's husband also worked there. (that is 33% of the Jury having a direct link with the key provider of evidence for the crown's prosecution)

Is is possible that Jury members had a vested interest in supporting the evidence provided by the crown, the son of one of their fellow workmates?

Jury admits that they did not believe key crown witness

The Jury Foreman made a statement to the media saying that the Jury did not believe key crown witness David Hogan and his testimony. This evidence was arguably the only basis for the crown prosecution. It was said in summary by Justice Hansen, that "if you do not believe David Hogan, there is no crown case against Haig.

So why then did the Jury return a guilty verdict. Were there other reasons for their decision? Maybe we will never know, or maybe the truth will find its way out eventually, as it often does.

Intimidation and a sudden Decision

During the trial the Jury were very uncomfortable complaining of intimidation from someone in the audience. Eventually the Jury formally asked for the public to be removed. This request was refused.

The Jury asked to see a selection of specific pieces of evidence. However, it was decided that the Jury would break for Dinner and view the evidence later. Following the events at Dinner the Jury decisively delivered a guilty verdict without need to see the evidence.

A jury member was later to make a statement to the defense team that they were pressured to make a decision and that they were not happy with that decision.

Why did the jury no longer find the evidence necessary when they had been so adamant of its importance? Who was behind the intimidation in the court and why? And what was said over dinner that decisively made up the minds of the Jury?

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.