Pora wants compo to be inflation-adjusted

Teina Pora will go to court over the Government’s decision not to inflation-adjust his compensation package.

Pora was awarded more than $2.5 million in compensation by the Government in June after spending 21 years in prison for the 1992 murder of Susan Burdett – a crime he did not commit.

Private investigator Tim McKinnel, who led Pora’s innocence bid, said one of the options left open when the compensation was accepted was ‘‘whether or not he could have the decision not to apply inflation reviewed by the courts’’.

‘‘His instructions very recently are that he wants to take that step,’’ McKinnel said.

Pora’s legal team is preparing the papers necessary for the High Court for a judicial review.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister John Key says any new Government policy to allow inflationadjusted compensation for those wrongly convicted would be done separate from Pora’s case.

This comes on the back of Cabinet papers released under the Official Information Act showing Justice Minister Amy Adams rejected advice that Pora’s compensation be adjusted for inflation.

Justice Rodney Hansen, who provided advice on an appropriate amount of compensation for Pora, recommended the Cabinet take into account inflation over the 21 years he was incarcerated, which would have substantially increased the figure.

But Key said it was the collective responsibility of the Cabinet that made the decision not to inflation-proof Pora’s payout and Adams’ ‘‘rationale’’ wasn’t specific to Pora’s case.

‘‘Cabinet’s view is if we’re going to change to inflation-proofing then we think we should do that for any person who gets compensation, so it’s something we’d rather consider as a stand-alone policy rather than as a result of a particular compensation payment we’re making,’’ Key said.

McKinnel said adjusting for inflation would make a substantial difference.

‘‘It makes little difference to the Government and the public purse I’d argue, but it would make a heck of a difference for Teina.’’

McKinnel said Pora should have received closer to $8m, which he was entitled to as the ‘‘victim of probably the most severe miscarriage of justice New Zealand has seen’’.