Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Peters Winston: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:620;Page:15745] 
6.  
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does she still have confidence in the Minister of Police; if so why? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the 
 Prime Minister 
: Yes because he remains a hard-working and conscientious Minister. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Can I ask the Prime Minister why the jury was not told that Edwards knew McNee well before the night in question that led to the loss of McNee’s life; and why is the Minister not interested in that information? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Because the decision about the introduction of that evidence was taken solely by prosecuting counsel as it should have been. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If that is true could I ask the Prime Minister why the police are holding a press conference at 3.30 today to explain the position when last week they said there was no need to have any review with regard to McNee’s killing? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am advised that I think an undertaking was given some time before as to 
the police’s release of the file subsequent to sentencing. Sentencing I understand occurred this morning. That is a matter for the police. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why did every member of that jury agree that there was something missing in this trial in respect of the charge of murder and believe that the police were holding something back? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am not responsible for what the jury have concluded. As I say the decision about what evidence was attempted to be introduced was a matter for Crown counsel but I have been advised that in fact the judgment was that the evidence would not have been allowed to be introduced. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why was the jury not told that McNee had taken a mixture of Viagra and amyl nitrite which is a cocktail known to be a shared drug; and why was the jury not told that it was shared by Edwards on the night in question and that experts know that it leads to psychotic behaviour—a critical piece of evidence that the jury never heard? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I repeat that the nature of the evidence that is introduced is a matter for prosecuting counsel. I would deplore any attempt to suggest that a politician should be responsible for the conduct one way or the other of trials. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Given that a man will be out of prison within 4½ years for what was clearly a murder—if the evidence had been produced—why did the judge tell the jury that nothing in Edwards’ prior criminal record suggested he would commit murder? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Government is not responsible for the instructions that judges give to jurors. Once judges are appointed they are independent. I would deplore any attempt to suggest that politicians should influence what judges say to jurors. As to when the person involved will be released from jail that is a matter for the Parole Board which might well take into account 56 previous convictions. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Why would the Parole Board take into account 56 previous convictions when Edwards’ serious criminal activity did not come out during the trial a trial in which the police alleged murder but failed to produce the evidence to sustain it; is the Minister not interested in justice for someone who is a murderer will be out on our streets within 4½ years? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I am certainly interested in justice. Part of justice in a democratic system is that Governments do not instruct judges Governments do not instruct prosecuting counsel and Governments do not instruct jurors. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I ask the Prime Minister whether there is a different standard of law when a homosexual is involved to the extent that were this case in any way a “normal” case there would surely have been a reaction particularly from her Government given its social policy stance; why is McNee’s case different? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: It is not. It is the member who is asking for the case to be different by asking the Government to take action that it would not take in any other case.