Peters tells of pressure over killer

By AUDREY YOUNG

New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said pressure "from above" was placed on the police to drop a prosecution of a violent offender who had confessed to attacking a judge's husband, and he implicated members of the Judiciary and the Cabinet.

The decision had put the privacy of a man ahead of the safety of society.

The police swiftly abandoned their position of no comment and reacted strongly last night to deny any suggestion of "collusion or conspiracy with the Judiciary or politicians".

"My message is that's absolute nonsense," said Assistant Commissioner Peter Marshall.

Mr Peters, who clearly has leaked police files on the case, argues that if Phillip Layton Edwards had been prosecuted for an attack on Peter Shaw, husband of Employment Court Judge Coral Shaw, he would not have gone on to kill an Auckland interior designer, David McNee, in July last year.

He is awaiting sentencing after admitting manslaughter in what he claims was a sex deal gone wrong.

Mr Peters told Parliament on Tuesday that Mr Shaw had laid a false complaint of aggravated burglary and that Edwards had been invited into the Shaw home in Morningside, Auckland, in September 2002.

Yesterday he said it became clear to the police that some of the physical evidence at the crime scene was at odds with the verbal evidence of Mr Shaw. He said Mr Shaw was called to the police station for a second interview and Judge Coral Shaw was present during it.

Mr Peters also said there had been "a conspiracy to let a violent criminal walk the streets of Auckland because the police would not prosecute him for a violent crime".

He challenged Police Minister George Hawkins to produce evidence of telephone accounts and email to show that pressure had not been applied by "members of the Judiciary or Executive [Cabinet]".

Edwards is said to have confessed in April last year.

Mr Peters told Parliament the police file had on it a note saying "Edwards was spoken to and admitted to the burglary on the understanding that it would never be used against him or published in any way."

The file had also been stamped "confidential and not for unauthorised distribution or disclosure".

Mr Shaw's lawyer, John Haigh, QC, has said his client had been too traumatised to give evidence at a trial and was being "re-victimised."

Mr Peters said a prosecution could still have gone ahead because the police had a DNA match and a confession from Edwards.

"Is it not a fact that no one could have intimidated the complainant witness in this case given that the perpetrator had admitted to his crime, had confessed his crime and so therefore there was absolutely no reason why the police could not have prosecuted Mr Edwards other than instruction from above?"

Edwards had 50 previous convictions and was considered so much of a walking timebomb that his nickname was "Tick".

Assistant Commissioner Peter Marshall said the police made an operational decision not to prosecute "and we stand by that decision".

"To suggest that there was any collusion with politicians is quite incorrect, grossly unfair and plain inaccurate."

He said he would not comment on the decision not to prosecute because Edwards was still before the court.

He said the police might consider revealing more after sentencing but the legal constraints at the moment were significant.

"We have no doubt as to the appropriateness of the decision and the integrity of the decision."

Assistant Commissioner Marshall would not comment on the appropriateness of Judge Coral Shaw being at a police interview specifically, but said "if a husband or a wife wanted to be present and that was the complainant's view, we would be in no position and nor would we want to object to that".

The Acting Auckland Commander, Detective Superintendent Gavin Jones, said in a statement yesterday that the police dealt with the matter on the basis they dealt with other matters. "No special approach was taken or suggested."