Peters Winston: General Debates 
Peters Winston: General Debates 
[Volume:619;Page:15249] 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Today my colleague Ron Mark and I will outline a conspiracy to let a violent criminal walk the streets of Auckland because the police would not prosecute him for a violent crime. 
Two years ago a serious crime was committed by a potential killer in Rocky Nook Avenue in Auckland. The offender was identified and DNA-tested by the police and he confessed. This was an open-and-shut case but it never got to court and we want to know why. The offence happened at the home of Judge Coral Shaw and her husband Peter Shaw. Their lawyer John Haigh QC said that Mr Shaw had been violently attacked in a burglary and had not wanted to go through the trauma of a trial. I emphasise the lawyer’s words that his client had been “violently attacked”. He said that Mr Shaw remains a victim. Mr Shaw of course claimed that there had been a burglary at his home that he was attacked and that he rang the police to lodge a complaint of aggravated burglary at his home. Mr Haigh said that his client was like many victims: he did not want to relive his situation by going through the prosecution process. 
I want to know what is going on in New Zealand. Let us look at these facts. They are coming out very slowly but they are coming. There was a violent incident at the Shaw home but was it a burglary? The police had a suspect and they identified this man by DNA. The police had more: they had a confession. In short they had an open-and-shut case against Phillip Edwards but it did not proceed. They did not need at any time Peter Shaw as a witness. 
So the reason that the public has been given today yesterday and for the last few weeks is balderdash. If there is a killing as in a murder case the victim obviously cannot appear in court. This cut-and-dried case would have put a killer behind bars but it was dropped and we want to know why. Who made the decision to let a violent criminal with over 50 offences many violent go free? Who decided to cover up this case and mark the file “Confidential” and “not available for any authorised disclosure”? Who wrote on the police file the following: “Edwards was spoken to and admitted the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way.”? Why when the police have the man’s modus operandi was he not charged? What is the Minister of Police not telling New Zealand today? Why did the police threaten on three occasions one of which was in writing the television programme  
20/20 
? 
Simon Power 
: What! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: They threatened the television programme not once but on three occasions one of which was in writing. Whom is the Minister covering up for and whom is he protecting? He has now had weeks to apprise himself of all aspects of this case yet he sits there and argues that it is the job of the police and that he is not responsible. What will it take for that incompetent Minister to realise his responsibility? We have had a murder here yet the guy gets a conviction for manslaughter because this case never even got to trial—a case that was identical to the McNee case in many ways. Who is the Minister protecting? How can he say the police are tough on violent offenders when killers are allowed to walk free in the streets of New Zealand? And how many other cases are there like this? For there will be others. What is the Minister hiding and why should he not be required by his leader the Prime Minister of this country to resign? I cannot conceive of any self-respecting Western democracy allowing a Minister to get away with that—allowing him to abrogate himself of all responsibility and say it is someone else’s job to tell the public what was going on. This is a man who got up in the House last week and said that crime is down in New Zealand. 
Ron Mark 
: No wonder! 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS 
: No wonder—he does not prosecute violent criminals! [ 
Interruption 
] No wonder—he does not prosecute murderers!