McCully Murray: General Debates 
McCully Murray: General Debates 
[Volume:617;Page:12853] 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) 
: 
 Today the National Party is releasing papers obtained under the Official Information Act in relation to the police decision to prosecute Shane Ardern member of Parliament. Today the National Party is asking the public and the media to draw their own conclusions about the material on that file. After the incident on the steps of Parliament Buildings all that Shane Ardern the member for Taranaki - King Country wanted was to be treated by the New Zealand justice system as any other New Zealander would be treated. We now know that Mr Ardern was not treated as any other New Zealander would have been treated. 
We know first and foremost because the judge who sat on the status hearing to the case told us so. He told us that this was a matter that “would normally not trouble this court”. The judge told us: “If it had been anybody else it would have gone no further.” The judge told us that there were “other powers and agendas” at play. That is a strong statement from a judge of the District Court: “other powers and agendas”. So today the National Party asks what those “other powers and agendas” were. What does the Minister know about those “other powers and agendas”? 
Why is it that Shane Ardern member of Parliament was not treated as any other New Zealander would have been treated? We know because we have now obtained a copy of the prosecution review by Senior Sergeant Brendan Erasmuson. The review makes it clear that the view of the prosecutor’s office was that it was a poor case that the chances of success were “nearly zero” and that even if Mr Ardern were convicted he would be discharged under section 106. The report also says that to proceed would make the police look silly. Even worse in the view of the prosecutor it would make the police look politically partisan. That is what the prosecutor told the police in writing. 
The police prosecution service was established in 1998 to ensure that decisions made about appropriate charging whether to proceed and so on were made by specialists and above all else that they were made by independent specialists independent from investigating police officers. What we know from the documentation that has been released now is that that was not an independent process because a very senior officer one Superintendent John Kelly from head office tried to obstruct the proper operation of the independent police prosecution office. He said in a memorandum to the police prosecution service: “In relation to this issue there are to be no moves to withdraw this matter.” This was a direct instruction from a superintendent of police the regional commander at the time saying to all his police underlings that if they did not do what he said they could not expect to have a bright and rosy future in the police force in this country. That is what the email unmistakably said to any officer beneath who read it. That was the instruction that went out to the police prosecution service. 
Notwithstanding that communication the Police Prosecution Service review is damning. It says that the charging of Mr Ardern is “fraught with difficulties”. It says: “It is probable that following Mr Ardern’s evidence or the production of his statement the case would fail once the court had seen the evidence.” It says further: “The chances of this matter resulting in a conviction are nearly zero. Even if the prosecution established a prima facie case after defence evidence and some days of hearing time a section 106 discharge would almost be a certainty.” Then we have this: “Given the many times when others have not had the sanction of prosecution at protests with arguably more serious offending public condemnation of the prosecution would probably take place.”