Mark Ron: General Debates 
Mark Ron: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15257] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 There are three tenets of policing that are absolutely adhered to in normal circumstances by the police of this nation. They are firstly to detect crime; secondly to apprehend offenders; and thirdly to prevent crime from occurring. The police are charged to uphold the law without fear or favour. In the case of Phillip Layton Edwards clearly that has not been the case. 
Further there is a convention that if the police have all the evidence they must prosecute. Standard domestic violence and rape cases are occasions where they totally adhere to that convention. But as we look at the situation that is unfolding in the Phillip Edwards case as it involves Mr Peter Shaw it is quite clear that for some obscure and odd reason the police have chosen to break with that convention. 
I raise another point which is about the oath of office that every police officer takes. That oath states: “I do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady the Queen in the Police without favour or affection malice or ill-will until I am legally discharged; that I will see and cause Her Majesty’s peace to be kept and preserved; and I will prevent to the best of my power all offences against the peace; and that while I continue to hold the said office I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law. So help me God.” That is the oath of office that every police officer takes. The question is why the police did not adhere to their oath follow the conventions and charge Phillip Layton Edwards with a reported aggravated burglary of Judge Shaw’s home. Why? 
People ask why I should pursue this issue. Why should New Zealand First pursue this issue? I want to give the House the reason. The police knew the violent nature and tendencies of Mr Edwards. They had him in custody and they had a case against him with a DNA strike and a confession yet they still failed to prosecute him on this charge. Again we have to ask why. 
I want to give the House an idea of why he was in jail. This is from the sentencing notes of Judge Rea in the Napier District Court: “The complainant and three small children were at the house. You”—being Edwards—“became angry when you were woken by a telephone call. You accused the complainant”—Edwards’ girlfriend—“of deliberately making more noise than she needed to wake you up. When she denied this you lifted her from the chair where she was and you punched her in the face. This caused her to fall to the ground where you punched her and at one point tried to strangle her. She feared for her life and she asked if she could go outside for a cigarette. You agreed and when she went outside and tried to run off down the road you followed her but you did not want her to leave. You were yelling threats and abuse at her all along the way throughout this exercise in an effort to get her back to the house. You grabbed her by the hair and tried to drag her back. You held her by the hair with one hand while punching her several times in the face with the other. By this time the two of you were out on the street and the incident was being witnessed by another person who drove towards you in a car. Fearing for your girlfriend’s safety this other person drove towards you and parked alongside. She called you to stop what you were doing. She tooted the car horn to try to get the attention of neighbours or someone else to come to help. Your response was to abuse her swear at her and threaten to smash her car. Not surprisingly she was frightened and locked herself in the car. You then went back to your girlfriend and continued to beat her up in the same manner as before. The lady did a U-turn tried to help and eventually gave up and sought the assistance of the police.” 
That is the nature of Phillip Layton Edwards and the police knew all of that detail when they got a DNA strike and a confession in relation to a reported aggravated burglary of the home of a member of the judiciary. Why did the police not prosecute Mr Edwards in the interests of the safety of the public? A prosecution would have eventually preserved the life of Mr David McNee.