Murder bill divides National

By Andrew Laxon

political reporter

The Government is on the verge of introducing a shakeup of the murder laws, but the proposed changes have started a vicious slanging match within its own ranks.

National backbench MP Brian Neeson is confident that his private member's bill, which creates new categories of first, second and third degree murder, will be adopted as Government policy at next week's caucus.

He is understood to have support from the Minister of Justice, Tony Ryall, and estimates he has agreement from 80 per cent of Government-aligned MPs, including Act.

But he has run into strong rearguard opposition from the former Minister of Justice, Sir Douglas Graham, who says he will do whatever he can to stop the law change.

Sir Douglas said yesterday that the long-delayed Degrees of Murder Bill was a mess and Mr Neeson was trying to "doctor it up" to make it logical.

"That's not the way to make law, let alone a criminal law. Seat-of-the-pants stuff by people who don't understand legal principle is a very dangerous thing."

Mr Neeson snapped back: "That's the sort of high-handed approach I would expect from Doug and from those who sit in the leather couches smoking cigars."

Under Mr Neeson's bill, first degree murder would apply to especially sadistic or malicious crimes and would carry a minimum sentence of 25 years.

Mr Neeson suggested the vicious 1992 rape and murder of Papatoetoe woman Susan Burdett would be a good example.

Second degree murder would match the present crime of murder. Third degree murder would apply in cases of diminished responsibility, with penalties ranging from a suspended sentence to life imprisonment.

That would allow juries to show mercy in cases such as that of Janine Albury-Thomson, who killed her violent autistic daughter, Casey, two years ago.

A sympathetic jury found her guilty of manslaughter, even though the circumstances suggested the killing was intentional.

Mr Neeson said third degree murder might also apply to repeat drunk-drivers who killed people but who now faced a maximum charge of manslaughter.

Sir Douglas said the proposed law would make a jury's job too complicated and would lead to endless appeals.

"It's quite a subjective decision of what is malicious and what is sadistic. You run the risk of a jury in Invercargill saying, 'This is sadistic' and another one in Auckland saying, 'This isn't' ... and one has to ask what are we gaining out of all this confusion?"

Sir Douglas hoped National's opponents, including Alliance justice spokesman Matt Robson, would block the bill if it reached Parliament.