Mark Ron: General Debate 
Mark Ron: General Debate 
[Volume:620;Page:15478] 
RON MARK (NZ First) 
: 
 The case of Phillip Edwards and David McNee gets murkier and murkier. Sadly it smacks of all the signs of incompetence that we have become used to seeing from the Minister of Police and this Government when it comes to enforcing the law. It is time that the full truth of this case is brought out in the open so that the people of New Zealand can learn why certain facts were concealed from the High Court jury and who was responsible for making the decision not to prosecute Mr Edwards in the case of events at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue. McNee and Edwards knew each other before the fatal attack on Mr McNee. Edwards had been seen driving McNee’s car in Kaikohe and they had been seen in Auckland gay bars together. That has been confirmed by sources outside this House. Those facts did not come out in the High Court and we are asking why that was. Who made the decision to keep those very important facts secret from the jury? 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. My understanding is that earlier this afternoon the Speaker made a ruling in the House about this matter being sub judice. The Speaker said that because of the word “sentence” in Standing Order 112(2) referring to the case was ruled out of order because the case was sub judice. I wonder whether the member should bear that in mind in his speech. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. He is correct. The Speaker did rule in terms of Standing Order 112(2) which states: “Standing Order 111 ceases to have effect in any case when the verdict and sentence has been announced or judgment given.” The sentence has not yet been given. I would caution the member on that. 
RON MARK 
: Thank you for your guidance Madam Speaker. I was not here this afternoon during question time in the House. Is it not interesting that that Minister of Police made a highly charged political speech to senior officers in the Christchurch police station and criticised myself and the New Zealand First Party for not having the facts right? One member of this House went on in that same meeting to say that the only source that Ron Mark had was Worcester sauce. Well this Worcester sauce is a little too hot for him right now. That is why this Government wants to hide behind such points of order but the facts will come out in time. 
Right now I will talk about Mr Shaw. The question is why Mr Edwards was not prosecuted for what the police have now confirmed was a violent attack on Mr Shaw in his home. People are saying that had the charge for that attack been laid Mr Edwards would probably be in jail and would not have gone on to commit the further crime for which he has just been convicted. 
Hon Mark Gosche 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member is running a fine line here. He is continuing to refer to the case. I was listening carefully then. The member needs to be careful. I have ruled on it. He must not refer to the case that has been in court. 
RON MARK 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. Firstly I am getting a little concerned that points of order may be taken just to interject on my speech on issues that the Government is very sensitive about. However I am talking about the case that never ever got to court. [ 
Interruption 
] Thank you. The point is this: why did that case not get to court? We now know—the police have now conceded this—that a violent crime took place at 8 Rocky Nook Avenue which is in the Prime Minister’s own electorate. She said so in this House. This Government has been very big on the issue of clamping down on domestic violence on crimes of violence and on physical assaults. It has proudly boasted that it has been able to secure convictions on DNA evidence alone. Yet in this case where there was a DNA strike and the police had identified the man who had committed the crime no charge was laid. 
My questions are these: why was Edwards not charged with assaulting Mr Shaw and why was the file relating to the Shaw-Edwards incident stamped “Confidential. Not for Unauthorised Eyes”? Who made that decision at what level was it made and why was the decision as to whether to prosecute not left where it rightly belonged which was in Avondale in Auckland? Why did people at national headquarters level get involved in that? Who did get involved in it and why? People argue that there has been a serious miscarriage of justice and a serious undermining of the law and order process and of the judiciary. My next question is this: why did a police officer threaten a journalist from  
20/20 
? Some would say that that is the very sort of thing Robert Mugabe may do. The Minister himself stood in the House and said that he did not do that sort of thing—namely get into files—which is the sort of thing that Robert Mugabe does. On the other hand we have written evidence tabled in this House that a police officer threatened a journalist and a programme. Why? Why does this Government ignore all that and say nothing? 
I shall pose a suggestion. There is a very serious fear in the community that the defence of homophobic panic will become an issue that people may play on. It seems to me that if the police do not prosecute cases that come before them to the fullest extent of the law and if they do not investigate them to the fullest extent of their capability where they involve homosexuals per se it may suggest that those people will be given a second-rate dose of the law and that they are not as important as other people. That is of concern is it not?