Bain family murders
The Bain family murders refers to the deaths of Robin and Margaret Bain, along with three of their children - Arawa, Laniet and Stephen - in Dunedin, New Zealand on 20 June 1994. Their eldest son, David Cullen Bain was wrongfully convicted in May 1995 on five counts of murder. He spent almost 13 years of a life sentence in prison before the Privy Council declared there had been a 'substantial miscarriage of justice'. He was released on bail in May 2007, pending retrial.
Soon after Bain was convicted in 1995, his case was taken up by businessman and former All Black footballer Joe Karam, who had been convinced that Bain was innocent. Karam helped Bain navigate a long appeal process through the New Zealand court system, and has written four books about the case. In May 2007, Bain's legal team, guided by Karam, successfully appealed to the Privy Council in Britain. Finding there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice, the Privy Council quashed Bain's convictions and ordered a retrial. The retrial ended with Bain's acquittal on all charges in June 2009. The Privy Council finding of miscarriage of justice and the outcome of the retrial raised the possibility that David's father, Robin Bain, was not murdered, but committed suicide after killing the other family members.
Speculation about the case continued long after Bain was acquitted, including whether or not he should receive compensation for the years he spent in prison. Because the case had such a high profile in New Zealand, Justice Minister Simon Power appointed Canadian jurist Ian Binnie in November 2011 to review the circumstances and advise the Government on whether compensation should be paid. Binnie's report was subsequently rejected by the Minister of Justice, Judith Collins, in controversial circumstances. In March 2015, the Government picked another retired judge, Ian Callinan, a former justice of the High Court of Australia, to review once again Bain's claims for compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Callinan was expected to report back to New Zealand's Justice Minister, Amy Adams, in September 2015. By February 2016, more than six years after Bain was found not guilty, no decision on compensation had been announced.
- 1 Family background
- 2 The deaths
- 3 First trial 1995
- 4 Support of Joe Karam
- 5 Appeals
- 6 Retrial 2009
- 7 Coroner's inquests
- 8 Compensation
- 9 Cost to taxpayer
- 10 Life after acquittal
- 11 Popular culture
- 12 See also
- 13 Notes
- 14 References
- 15 Further reading
- 16 External links
Robin Irving Bain and Margaret Arawa Cullen were married in 1969 in Dunedin, New Zealand. They had four children, David (born 1972), Arawa (1974), Laniet (1976) and Stephen (1980). In 1974, they moved to Papua New Guinea, where Robin worked as a missionary teacher. The family returned to New Zealand in 1988. Three years after his return, Robin became the principal of Taieri Beach School,[n 1] a two-teacher school about 50 kilometres down the coast from Dunedin.
In 1994, the family lived at 65 Every Street, Andersons Bay, Dunedin. The house was old and 'semi-derelict'. At this time Robin and Margaret were estranged, with Robin sleeping in the back of his van at Taieri or in the schoolhouse three nights a week. He returned to the family home at weekends but slept in a caravan in the back garden. David was studying music and classics at Otago University and had a part-time job delivering morning newspapers. Arawa was attending a teachers' training college and Stephen was at high school. Laniet had lived away from home for a period but returned for the weekend of 18–19 June.
On the morning of 20 June 1994, David Bain called 111 at 7:09 am in a distressed state and told the operator: "They're all dead, they're all dead." When the police arrived they found five members of the Bain family had been shot to death – Robin Bain (58), his wife Margaret (50), their daughters Arawa (19) and Laniet (18), and their son Stephen (14). There was evidence of a violent struggle involving Stephen who was partly strangled as well as shot. Four days later, David Bain, then aged 22, was charged with the murders of all five members of his family.
Two weeks after the murders, after the police had completed their inquiries and handed the house over to the family trustees on 30 June, the house was burnt down by agreement between the Bain family and the New Zealand Fire Service,and with David Bain's consent. 
First trial 1995
The Crown's case
The Crown put forward that David got up at about 5 a.m., took his rifle from his wardrobe and unlocked the trigger lock with a spare key that he kept in a jar on his desk. It was alleged that he then shot to death in an unknown order his mother, two sisters and brother. The Crown said that during the struggle with his brother, a lens from the glasses he was wearing fell out on the floor in Stephen's room. The prosecution said David then washed his blood stained clothes, changed into clean clothes and went on his morning paper run. They said that after returning, he went into the lounge, switched on the computer at around 6.44 a.m, and typed in the message "sorry, you are the only one who deserved to stay" in order to give the appearance that his father had committed the killings and committed suicide. According to the Crown, when his father came in from his caravan to pray, David shot him in the head from close range as he knelt in the lounge and then re-arranged the scene to make it look like a suicide. David called 111 at 7.09 a.m. to report the deaths, and the prosecution argued that his apparent agitation on the phone was just a pretence.
The defence submitted that Robin Bain killed the other family members while David was out on his paper round, then switched on the computer, typed in the message and shot himself. The Crown said there was no evidence that Robin committed suicide but the police armourer testified at the trial that the rifle used for the killings was 20 cm longer than it actually was and Crown pathologist, Dr Alex Dempster, never measured the lengths of Robin’s arms. However, defence lawyer Michael Guest was able to demonstrate his suicide theory by placing the butt of the rifle on a chair, placing the muzzle against his temple, then reaching down and squeezing the trigger. Dr Dempster said he hadn't considered that possibility but could not discount it.
David testified that he got up at his usual time, dressed, put on his running shoes, took his newspaper bag and went out on his paper run with his dog. He said he arrived back about 6.42 a.m., entered by the front door and went to his room without turning on the lights. He said he took off the newspaper bag and his shoes and then went downstairs to the bathroom where he washed his hands which were covered with black newsprint. He said he put some clothes in the washing machine, including the sweatshirt he had been wearing that morning, and turned it on. He said it wasn't until he went back upstairs to his room and turned on the light that he noticed bullets and the trigger lock on the floor. He went to his mother's room, finding her dead with her eyes open, then visited the other rooms. He said he heard his sister Laniet gurgling and found his father dead in the lounge. At 7.09 a.m., he rang the emergency number in great distress.
The Crown prosecutor suggested that David Bain wanted to inherit the family estate, but also told the jury "... that these events were so bizarre and abnormal that it was impossible for the human mind to conceive of any logical or reasonable explanation".
At the time of this trial, little in the way of motive was presented for Robin Bain to have committed the killings either although the defense submitted that "Robin was a proud school teacher who had been rejected by his family and had snapped after months of pressure."
Dean Cottle had made a formal statement, three days after the deaths of the Bain family members, that he had been a friend of Laniet's and that she had told him that her father had been having sex with her for about a year and was still doing so. His statement was ruled unreliable and not presented to the jury. The judge initially made that decision because Cottle failed to show up at court. When he did turn up at a later date, "he was in a state of some confusion" and Justice Williamson said he did not believe him. The Judge then ruled that the identity and statement of Cottle be suppressed.
In an affidavit written after the trial, Cottle said that three days before the murders, Laniet told him she was going home that weekend to tell the rest of the family what had been going on and "put a stop to everything,she was sick of everyone getting up her".
Support of Joe Karam
Joe Karam subsequently spearheaded a lengthy campaign to have Bain's convictions overturned. He felt something was wrong with the case and began to study the evidence presented at the original trial. He went to visit Bain in prison in Christchurch and subsequently visited him over 200 times. From 1997 to 2012, Karam wrote four books about Bain's case and helped him in his numerous appeals. Karam was subsequently described in the media as a 'freedom fighter'. Without his support, it is unlikely there would ever have been a retrial.
Over the years, details of the evidence presented at the original trial and subsequent hearings were relitigated at social gatherings and on the internet. The case remained controversial, including after Bain was found not guilty, and often produced quite 'visceral' responses. Karam's motives were questioned and he was frequently criticised and attacked on social media for his support of Bain. In response, he successfully sued or took defamation cases against North & South magazine, the New Zealand Herald, and journalist Rosemary McLeod. In 2014, he was awarded $535,000 following a suit against Kent Parker and Victor Perkiss for over 50 defamatory posts the pair made on Facebook and Counterspin. However Kent Parker said he couldn't pay and applied for bankruptcy while Purkiss avoided payment by taking off to England.
Court of Appeal 1995
The first application was made to the New Zealand Court of Appeal in 1995. The principal matter to be addressed was whether the trial judge had erred in refusing to admit the evidence of Cottle. The Court of Appeal refused to hear the appeal on the grounds that "the Crown case appeared very strong and the defence theory not at all plausible."
Second Court of Appeal 1998
The case garnered wide publicity, and expressions of public concern led to a joint review by New Zealand Police and the Police Complaints Authority. In June 1998, Bain petitioned the Governor-General for a pardon. The Governor-General passed the application on to the Ministry of Justice, which conducted an investigation into new information presented by the defence team. In 2000, Justice Minister Phil Goff said the investigation had shown that "a number of errors" may have occurred in the Crown's case against Bain. To assist with the Governor-General's review, six specific questions concerning the case were referred to the Court of Appeal. The Court also received over 50 affidavits from 42 witnesses, 13 of whom were questioned before the court at a hearing which lasted from 14 to 18 October 2002.
The Court eventually concluded: "We are of the opinion that there is a possibility that there has been a miscarriage of justice that would warrant the question of David Bain's convictions being referred to this Court under s406(a) of the Crimes Act 1961." This meant the case was then referred back to the Court of Appeal for a full hearing (the third).
Third Court of Appeal 2003
The case was referred to the Court of Appeal a third time in 2003. This time, the court had before it all the material which had been presented to the second Court of Appeal, the benefit of that court's answers to the Governor-General's six questions, plus some additional affidavits. The third Court heard submissions over five days between 1 and 9 September, but did not allow oral evidence or cross-examination. Three affidavits came from witnesses who the Privy Council subsequently said were well-disposed towards Robin Bain. One, Mr Kevin Mackenzie, President of the Taieri Principals’ Association, said "he and his colleagues judged in early 1994 that Robin was deeply depressed, to the point of impairing his ability to do his job of teaching children."
One of the questions related to the glasses and the lens to which the Court commented. "It must be a reasonable inference that the items found in David's room 'the glasses frame and one lens' were there because David considered the glasses to be of some use to him. The presence of the left lens in Stephen's room , in conjunction with the remainder of the glasses being in David's room , is consistent with the Crown's contention [ that David was wearing the glasses in Stephen's room ]. David was unable to explain how the left lens had become separated from the frame and how the right lens had also become detached from the frame".
At the end of the day, the court was not persuaded by the additional submissions that there had been a miscarriage of justice and the appeal was dismissed on 15 December 2003.
Privy Council 2007
In March 2007, Bain's legal team, including Karam, travelled to London to lay out nine arguments before the Privy Council as to why his convictions should be quashed. Two of the nine points concerned Robin Bain's mental state and possible motive. The Council noted: "If the jury found Robin to be already in a state of deep depression and now, a school principal and ex-missionary, facing the public revelation of very serious sex offences against his teenage daughter they might reasonably conclude that this could have driven him to commit these acts." 
The other seven points concerned questions about particular pieces of evidence including the time the computer was switched on and the time of David's return, the ownership of a pair of glasses found at the scene, the size of bloody sock prints, bloody fingerprints on the rifle, and whether David heard Laniet make a gurgling noise. The Privy Council found that many of these facts were highly contentious and the jury could well have been influenced by them. 
The Privy Council concluded that: "In the opinion of the board, the fresh evidence adduced in relation to the nine points ... taken together, compels the conclusion that a substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred in this case." The Privy Council quashed Bain's convictions and ordered a retrial, but noted that he should remain in custody in the mean time.
High Court bail hearing 2007
On 15 May 2007, Bain was granted bail by the High Court in Christchurch in a hearing that lasted only one hour. Justice Fogarty said that under New Zealand law, there was no reason for continued detention and he was bailed to the home of his longtime supporter, Karam. Altogether, he served almost 13 years of a life sentence with a minimum 16-year non-parole period.
The retrial took place at the Christchurch High Court, with the jury sworn in on 6 March 2009, and David Bain pleaded not guilty to the five murder charges. Much of the testimony focused on the killer's potential motive. The Crown prosecutor observed in his closing address to the jury, "Neither Robin nor David are natural born killers. But something went wrong in the house that morning to lead someone to kill. We may never know what it was, what the trigger was for that event".
The trial lasted about three months, but the jury took less than a day to find Bain not guilty on all five charges. Judge Binnie subsequently noted that "The 2009 jury did not reach a different conclusion on the same record [as the first trial]; it was presented with a very different and far more extensive factual picture, and the testimony of numerous additional experts of impressive credentials, than had been made available to the jury in 1995.
Each verdict of not guilty for the five murders was greeted with cheers and applause by some of those in court. Outside court, an emotional Bain thanked his supporters, particularly Karam. "Without Joe and his solid strength ... I wouldn't have made it through this far," Bain said. Karam said the trial would go down as the "criminal trial of New Zealand’s history". Some commentators questioned the behaviour of jurors who hugged Bain and attended a "victory party" after the verdict. Dr Chris Gallavin, a senior law lecturer at Canterbury University, said, "While this is unusual behaviour, the whole case is an unusual case."
In 1994, the Dunedin Coroner decided no inquest was needed, as he was satisfied that the evidence shown in court had established the cause of the deaths. After the retrial, New Zealand's Chief Coroner consulted with the local coroner and others to decide whether to conduct inquests into the deaths, as the verdict implied the death certificates may not be accurate. However no inquests were held; a Law Society spokesman pointed out that even if the coroner's findings disagreed with the retrial verdict, this could not lead to any further legal action against David Bain.
In March 2010, Bain lodged an application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment. His case falls outside Cabinet rules on compensation and so the Government is not obliged to pay him anything, but may do so if he is able to establish his innocence on "the balance of probabilities" and is also considered to be the "victim of exceptional circumstances".
Response by Simon Power
Because of the high-profile and contentious nature of the case in New Zealand, in 2011 then Justice Minister Simon Power chose an overseas judge - retired Canadian Supreme Court Justice Ian Binnie - to examine Bain's application for compensation.
Justice Binnie's report 2012
In addition to examining the legal issues, Justice Binnie interviewed Bain to ascertain the impact of spending almost 13 years in prison and the endless negative publicity about him.
In regard to his time in prison, Bain told Binnie that soon after he was incarcerated, he was assaulted by another prisoner who broke two of his teeth and left him with cuts and bruises. "When I was first imprisoned I was put on suicide watch which involved the prison officers turning on my cell light to check on me every 15 minutes [which] effectively became a means of torture. I suffered constant migraines, depression and loneliness." In regard to the publicity, he said he found it just as hard to adjust to being out of prison: "Everywhere I go, and in everything I do, I am always recognised and either comments are made or people question me... It is not a comfortable thing being known for something as traumatic as the events I have suffered through".
Bain also expressed concern at the loss of a possible career as a singer. At the time of his arrest, he had been studying for a degree in music and drama. His music teacher told him he had a "wonderful voice" and had the potential to become an international opera singer.
After a year long investigation, Binnie concluded, in a 180-page report, that Dunedin's police had made "egregious errors" and that there were "numerous instances" of investigative ineptitude that led directly to the wrongful conviction. In particular, he described the failure of the Crown to preserve evidence in the murder investigation, by burning down the house, as one of the "extraordinary circumstances" that the Cabinet should take into account. Another was the failure of the police to test Robin’s hands and clothing for residue of firearms discharge. Police also failed to investigate information that Laniet had accused her father of incest and planned to expose him to the rest of the family and failed to follow up on evidence of Robin Bain’s mental instability despite the Detectives Manual specifically instructing police to pursue the issue of motive. They also misled the first jury on where the lens of David's spectacles was found and knowingly gave the jury the wrong time for the switching on of the family computer. Altogether, Binnie identified 12 different mistakes or failings by the police.
Binnie decided the evidence established that "the miscarriage of justice was the direct result of a police investigation characterised by carelessness and lack of due diligence" and wrote: "in what is essentially a circumstantial case, it is noteworthy that the Police chose to exclude the one suspect (Robin) who was alleged to have a plausible if challenged motive, and pursue for 15 years the other suspect (David) for whom they had found no motive whatsoever." He concluded that "on the balance of probabilities" Bain was innocent of the murders in 1994 and should be paid compensation for wrongful conviction and imprisonment.
Response by Judith Collins
The finished report was delivered to the New Zealand government in September, 2012. By that stage, Simon Power had retired from Parliament and Judith Collins was the new Justice Minister. Collins sought feedback on the report from the police and the Solicitor-General and ordered a peer review of the report by a former High Court judge, Robert Fisher. Collins said one of the reasons she wanted further advice was because she received an email from Michael Guest, Bain's lawyer from his first trial who in 2001 had been disbarred for lying. Guest said in the email that Bain had made a 'damning admission' to both himself and his co-Counsel at the time of the first trial 17 years earlier that he had been wearing his mother's glasses the day before the murders, and that therefore Bain could not be innocent. Joe Karam said Guest's claim was contradicted by a letter the lawyer sent to Mr Karam after the first trial, in which Guest said he was "absolutely certain David is innocent or had suffered a miscarriage of justice".  The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal said Guest "had a tendency toward overstatements that sometimes departed from reality and truth."
In the process of getting further advice, Ms Collins refused to allow Bain's legal team to see a copy of Binnie's report. She also tried to prevent the report from being made public. Emails released to the media show her staff wanted Binnie to be kept "in the tent for as long as possible". Collins' press secretary sent her an email expressing her concern that the Canadian judge was going to go "completely feral" due to his concerns over the process.
Later that month, Collins called Binnie back to New Zealand for a 15-minute meeting. Binnie subsequently reported: "It was very clear at that time that the minister was furious with the conclusion I had reached. So I left Wellington knowing my report was dead on arrival... It's not uncommon among clients to keep going through lawyers until they find someone who agrees with them."
Justice Fisher's report
Fisher subsequently concluded that Binnie's report was "well organised, comprehensive and thorough. It is a valuable collation of the evidence currently available in relation to this claim". He then said that Binnie made "fundamental errors of principle" including the point that Binnie regarded Bain's acquittal as a relevant factor in proving his innocence.
Justice Fisher also listed a number of factual errors in Binnie's report such as his repeated description of the 10 shot magazine as empty when it had three live rounds in it and that the police authorised the burning down of the house when the decision was made by the Bain family. 
Fisher also concluded that Binnie "went beyond his mandate" in that he "did not have authority to express any conclusion on the question whether there were extraordinary circumstances such that compensation would be in the interests of justice." He said a new report would need to be done with the principles applied to the evidence correctly. However, Fisher also acknowledged: "That is far from saying that a fresh assessment would produce any different outcome. It is perfectly possible that it would vindicate (Justice) Binnie's conclusions."
Based on Fisher's criticisms, Collins responded by saying another report into Bain's compensation claim would have to be commissioned. Binnie took exception to Collins' criticisms of his report, arguing that he had weighed up the totality of the evidence both for and against Bain. He said the Government was clearly 'shopping around' for a report that would allow it to dodge paying compensation, a view which was endorsed by one academic  but rejected by others.
A media spat developed between Collins and Binnie, who pointed out, in an email subsequently released to the media by Collins, that Fisher had not read the 10,000 pages of background files and said his review was the product of someone with "little familiarity" with the case. Eventually Collins released the report written by Binnie, the review by Fisher, and Binnie's email response to Fisher's review.
The Prime Minister said he believed Fisher ripped Binnie's report apart. He said to get compensation the Bain team has to basically prove Robin did it and then has to provide exceptional circumstances. 
Judicial review of the Minister's actions
In January 2013, Bain filed a claim in the High Court seeking a review of Collins' actions. The claim alleged Collins breached natural justice and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, "acted in bad faith, abused her power, and acted in a biased, unreasonable and predetermined manner". This delayed any decision on compensation for at least another year.
Response by Amy Adams
In August 2014, Collins resigned in the midst of a furore over Dirty Politics. Four months later, Bain's legal team had confidential discussions with the new Minister of Justice, Amy Adams, about compensation. Bain's legal team included Michael Reed QC and Joe Karam and the discussion was chaired by Justice John Faire. In January 2015, Adams announced that judicial review proceedings against Collins had been discontinued and that Cabinet would resume consideration of Bain's bid for compensation.
Less than a month later, Cabinet endorsed Collins' perspective that Justice Binnie's report was flawed. Adams announced that both Binnie's report and Robert Fisher's report would be 'put aside', stating that Cabinet still "did not have enough information to reach a decision on a potential payout for Mr Bain". She said another report would have to be commissioned - at an additional cost of $400,000. In March 2015, she announced the appointment of retired Australian judge Hon Ian Callinan AC QC to conduct the new inquiry into Bain's compensation claim.
At least five opinion polls on whether Bain should receive compensation have been conducted since he was found not guilty at the second trial. The polls were conducted in 2012, 2013 (two) and 2015 [two]. In all five polls, between 57% and 74% of those polled said they thought Bain should receive compensation for the almost 13 years he spent in prison.
Cost to taxpayer
Bain's defence has cost the taxpayer more than $3 million in legal aid including over $330,000 to Joe Karam for his work relating to the retrial. Crown prosecution costs were at least $1.2 million. On top of this, the Government spent nearly $100,000 a year keeping him in prison for 13 years - adding another $1.3 million. Justice Binnie was paid $400,000 to investigate the question of Bain's likely innocence and assist cabinet determine whether compensation should be paid. Robert Fisher QC was then paid $206,000 to peer review Binnie's report.
Another $182,157 was spent by the Crown defending the judicial review requested by Bain's legal team into the decision made by Judith Collins to reject Justice Binnie's report. Justice Minister Amy Adams said the review was "legally complex, lasted for just under two years, and involved several interlocutory hearings." On 19 February 2015, Adams announced that the Government had decided to hold a fresh inquiry into Bain's application for compensation, saying that Cabinet did not have the information it needed to reasonably reach a decision and estimating the cost of the inquiry at $400,000.
If the Government eventually agrees to pay Bain compensation, he stands to gain as much as $2 million plus pecuniary losses to compensate for loss of livelihood for the 13 years he spent behind bars. Interviewed on Newstalk 2ZB about the Government's apparent reluctance to pay compensation, Prime Minister John Key said: "To get compensation, the Bain team has to prove, not that he's not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.. he has to basically prove Robin [Bain, David Bain's father] did it and then has to provide exceptional circumstances.".
Life after acquittal
Following his acquittal, Bain undertook a three-month European holiday paid for by his supporters. Ten months later, he was struggling to find work and had no money. Auckland defence lawyer Peter Williams QC said Bain would be suffering from the stigma experienced by ex-prisoners re-entering the workplace. In September 2012, Bain became engaged to his girlfriend, a Christchurch primary school teacher, and they were married on 10 January 2014. While in prison, another woman visited him for about five years, but this relationship ended after several failed appeals.
The jumpers worn by David Bain during the original trial, knitted by Margaret Bain to his own designs, became a symbol of the Bain case. During the retrial, T-shirts inspired by the jumpers were sold on Trade Me. Reflecting the high level of public interest in his case, in 2009, David Bain was found to be by internet search engine Google the most-searched for New Zealander of the past year.
The December Brother, a 2010 play produced by Tim Spite for Wellington's Downstage Theatre, depicts re-enactments of the Bain family killings. It presents two scenarios – the first with David Bain murdering his family, and the second with his father, Robin Bain, carrying out the killings, then taking his own life. The play was based on the theories put forward by the legal teams for the defence and prosecution during the trials.
- Cabinet paper, Amy Adams, Minister of Justice,
- David Bain v The Queen Opinion: Privy Council 11 May 2007 para 104
- Sweeney, Eamonn (May 4, 2014). "Dubs panic distorts the facts". Independent.ie. Retrieved January 19, 2016.
- Bain v. The Queen, 2006, paragraph 119.
- "David Bain found not guilty". 3 News NZ. 5 June 2009.
- Robin Bain's suicide 'possible', Otago Daily Times, 9 April 2009
- The case against Robin Bain, NZ Herald 12 February 2012
- Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet, NZ Herald 10 September 2012
- City divided on compo for David Bain, NZ Herald 10 September 2012
- "David Bain: Retired judge to head compensation claim". The New Zealand Herald. 20 March 2015. Retrieved 17 January 2016.
- "No word on new David Bain report from Justice Minister Amy Adams". Stuff.co.nz. October 9, 2015. Retrieved 15 October 2015.
- Van Beynen, Martin (6 June 2009). "The Bain mystery". stuff.co.nz. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
- "David Bain – A Profile". crime.co.nz. Retrieved 4 August 2007.
- David Bain V The Queen - Privy Council Judgment, Friday, 11 May 2007, para 2
- McNeish, James (1997). Mask of Sanity. Auckland: David Ling Publishing. p. 123. ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- David Bain V The Queen - Privy Council Judgment, Scoop, 11 May 2007, para 4.
- David Bain V The Queen - Privy Council Judgment, Friday, 11 May 2007, para 3
- Gay, Edward (2009-03-17). "David Bain could not explain 111 'they're all dead' call, court told". New Zealand Herald. ISSN 1170-0777. Retrieved 2016-01-26.
- David Bain v The Queen, para 6
- "Bain takes his case to the law lords". NZ Herald. February 25, 2007. Retrieved January 19, 2016.
- McNeish, James (1997). Mask of Sanity. Auckland: David Ling Publishing. p. 50. ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- Report For The Minister Of Justice On Compensation Claim By David Cullen Bain By Hon Ian Binnie QC, para 262
- Report For The Minister Of Justice On Compensation Claim By David Cullen Bain By Hon Ian Binnie QC, para 263
- David Bain v The Queen, para 7
- McNeish, James (1997). Mask of Sanity. Auckland: David Ling Publishing. p. 244. ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- James McNeish, The Mask of Sanity: The Bain Murders (Auckland: David Ling, 1997) ISBN 0-908990-46-4. Justice Williamson's summing up, page 264
- McNeish, James (1997). Mask of Sanity. David Ling Publishing. p. 244. ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- David Bain V The Queen - Privy Council Judgment, Friday, 11 May 2007, para 10
- McNeish, James (1997). The Mask of Sanity: The Bain Murders. Auckland: David Ling. pp. 279–280. Ruling Number 8 of Justice Williamson, 26 May 1995. ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- "David Bain trial: Three possible outcomes". The New Zealand Herald. 4 June 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
- David Bain V The Queen - Privy Council Judgment, Para 10
- Karam gets $330,000 in legal aid stuff.co.nz, 10 June 2009
- "Joe Karam: Freedom fighter". The New Zealand Herald. 15 December 2007.
- David Bain verdict ignites debate on controversial cases, Sunday Star Times, 14 June 2009
- Former Canadian judge embroiled in New Zealand wrongful conviction case, The Star, Canada 13 December 2012
- Joe Karam awarded over $500,000 damages, Stuff 17 April 2014
- Loser in Karam defamation case files for bankruptcy, Otago daily Times, 6 May 2014
- Karam defamer says he can't pay, RNZ 17 April 2014
- Read the full judgment of the Privy Council on David Bain (page 1), para 10 & 20, NZ Herald 10 May 2007
- Bain Matters Referred To Court Of Appeal, Press release by Phil Goff 19 December 2000
- Read the full judgement of the Privy Council on David Bain (page 1), NZ Herald 10 May 2007, para 22
- Read the full judgement of the Privy Council on David Bain (page 1), NZ Herald 10 May 2007, para 27
- David Bain vs The Queen, Privy Council decision, para 41
- Read the full judgement of the Privy Council on David Bain (page 1), NZ Herald 10 May 2007, para 30 - 33
- David Bain v The Queen Opinion: Privy Council 11 May 2007 paras 40 to 97
- Bain could be out of jail next week, New Zealand Herald, 11 May 2007
- David Bain v The Queen Opinion: Privy Council 11 May 2007 para 119
- Gay, Edward (2009-05-27). "Bain trial: 'That ladies and gentlemen is the evidence in this trial'". New Zealand Herald. ISSN 1170-0777. Retrieved 2016-01-02.
- Justice Binnie's report, para 28
- "David Bain trial: Reasons to acquit". NZ Herald. 6 June 2009.
- Binnie's report into compensation, para 76
- "David Bain speechless after not guilty verdicts read". NZ Herald. 5 June 2009.
- "David Bain speechless after not guilty verdicts read". 3 News NZ. 5 June 2009.
- David Bain not guilty, Stuff website 5 June 2009
- David Bain not guilty, NZ Herald, 5 May 2009
- "Jurors' behaviour questioned". Stuff.
- Harvey, Sarah (17 October 2009). "Cases stuck in coroner's mind". Otago Daily Times. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
- "Coroner's verdict could not spark action against Bain – Law Society". The New Zealand Herald. NZPA. 8 June 2009. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
- "Dunne: Bain should be compensated". The New Zealand Herald. December 14, 2012.
- Collins seeks second opinion on Bain, The Press, 4 December 2012
- Bain innocent and deserves payout judge tells Cabinet, NZ Herald 10 September 2012
- Bain: I wanted life in opera, NZ Herald 17 December 2012
- "REPORT FOR THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM BY DAVID CULLEN BAIN" (PDF). The New Zealand Herald.
- Bain-compo judge hits back at minister, NZ Herald 13 December 2012
- Report by Hon Ian Binnie, 30 August 2012, p 157
- Twelve reasons to worry about the Bain case, NBR, 25 January 2013
- Editorial: Minister errs in dismissing judge's Bain compo report, NZ Herald, 14 December 2012
- "REPORT FOR THE MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM BY DAVID CULLEN BAIN" (PDF). The New Zealand Herald. para 173
- Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet, NZ Herald 10 September 2012
- "Bain compo judge paid nearly $400,000". 3 News NZ. 11 October 2012.
- Otago law branch opposes Michael Guest's reinstatement, NBR 28 May 2009
- Guest allowed to practise law again, Southland Times, 8 October 2009
- Bain case: Justice staff feared a 'feral' judge, New Zealand Herald, 6 August 2013
- Government not dodging Bain compo - PM, New Zealand Herald, 23 February 2015
- Report recommending Bain compensation is 'flawed', New Zealand Herald, 13 December 2012
- "INTERIM REPORT FOR MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM BY DAVID BAIN" (PDF). The New Zealand Herald.
- Bain breaks his silence NZ Herald 16 December 2012
- David Bain: Law expert slams Government inquiry, New Zealand Herald, 20 February 2015.
- "Tapu Misa: Second opinion on Binnie makes sense". The New Zealand Herald.
- "David Bain's claim in limbo". stuff.co.nz. 14 December 2012.
- Report recommending Bain compensation is 'flawed', NZ Herald 13 December 2012
- "Bain takes High Court action against Collins". New Zealand Herald. Jan 30, 2013.
- Cabinet to look at David Bain compensation, New Zealand Herald , 23 January 2015
- David Bain won't get payout until new inquiry finds him innocent, New Zealand Herald, 19 February 2015
- David Bain: Retired judge to head compensation claim, New Zealand Herald, 20 march 2015
- Poll: Give Bain compo, NZ Herald, 28 December 2012
- Majority favour compo for Bain, The Press 21 February 2013
- Poll shows support for Bain compensation, TV3, 13 March 2013
- Poll backs compensation for David Bain, TVOne 10 May 2015
- "David Bain legal bill tops $3 million". 3 News NZ. April 28, 2012.
- "Karam paid more than $300,000 in legal aid". NZ Herald, 10 June 2009.
- "Bain case cost Crown Law $1.2m, MPs told". New Zealand Herald. June 18, 2009.
- Chief Justice Sian Elias, Blameless Babes, p 588
- "Bain fee topped $200k". New Zealand Herald. April 7, 2013.
- David Bain compensation case: Taxpayer costs mount, Dominion Post, 2 March 2015
- "New Bain inquiry will cost $400k". Radio New Zealand News. 19 February 2015.
- Bain innocent and deserves payout, judge tells Cabinet, NZ Herald, 10 September 2012
- "Government not dodging Bain compo - PM". New Zealand Herald. Feb 23, 2015.
- Free Bain struggles to find employment, Stuff.co.nz18 April 2010
- "David Bain gets engaged". 3 News NZ. 11 September 2012.
- Family 'delighted' by Bain engagement, NZ Herald 11 September 2012
- Ensor, Blair (10 January 2014). "David Bain to tie the knot today". Stuff.co.nz. Fairfax Media. Retrieved 10 January 2014.
The former Dunedin student - acquitted of killing five members of his family - was to marry Liz Davies, a primary school teacher at Bishopdale's Cotswold School. He proposed to her in September 2012.
- Life behind bars cost Bain dearly, NZ Herald 7 June 2009
- Martin Van Beynen (4 May 2009). "Bain jersey 'his own design'". Stuff.co.nz.
- "David Bain Support T-shirt - Red". Trade Me. 9 March 2009. Archived from the original on 13 August 2011. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
- "Top NZ Google searches for 2009 revealed". 3 News NZ. 2 December 2009.
- "Wellington.scoop.co.nz » Downstage: Tim Spite directing new work".
- Cardy, Tom (11 August 2010). "Play's Bain theories survive lawyers". Manawatu Standard. Retrieved 13 October 2011.
- Joe Karam David and Goliath: the Bain family murders (Auckland: Reed, 1997) ISBN 0-7900-0564-6
- James McNeish The Mask of Sanity: The Bain Murders (Auckland: David Ling, 1997) ISBN 0-908990-46-4.
- Joe Karam Bain and Beyond (Auckland: Reed, 2000) ISBN 0-7900-0747-9
- Joe Karam Innocent!: seven critical flaws in the conviction of David Bain, 2001 [a booklet]. ISBN 0-473-07874-0
- Joe Karam Trial By Ambush: The Prosecutions Of David Bain, 2012 ISBN 978-1869508340
- Judith Wolfe and Trevor Reeves In the Grip of Evil: The Bain Murders (Dunedin: Square One Press, 2003) ISBN 0-908562-64-0
- Michael Sharp. The Bain Killings Whodunnit? :ISBN 978-0-473-31230-5
- News media coverage:
- David Bain case timeline
- Application for Royal Prerogative of Mercy: David Cullen Bain, Minister of Justice, 31 October 2000.
- Crime.co.nz Unofficial NZ law enforcement web site with information on the case.