listening to this radio nz interview (nine to noon, 9.09am) with members of robin bain's family, i have to say that i agree with the proposition that people should have some protection from defamation during the course of a criminal trial. particularly people who are dead and are therefore no longer able to defend themselves.
in the last version of this trial, it seems to me (and as i always say, i'm no lawyer) that there were more relaxed rules of evidence around blaming a dead person for the crime. would that same evidence have been allowed if robin bain had been alive? and if not, why should it be allowed once he's dead? makes no sense to me.