The Labour Party has joined the chorus of voices calling for urgent attention to be paid to the case of Teina Pora, who is now into his 21st year in prison for the rape and murder of Susan Burdett.
In an unprecedented move, the Police Association earlier this week called for an independent inquiry into the case - the first such request in at least 16 years.
Labour's justice spokesman Andrew Little said there was now nothing stopping Justice Minister Judith Collins from setting up an inquiry into the case, and in light of the Police Association's position, she should now give the issue her urgent attention.
"There is overwhelming evidence in the public arena that Teina Pora's conviction is unsafe and that a miscarriage of justice has been done.
"Just as overwhelming is the growing number of calls for a genuinely independent inquiry into the conviction, and when the Police Association representing rank and file police officers supports those calls, then they must be taken seriously," Little said.
Justice Minister Judith Collins earlier said that it would be "completely inappropriate" for her to intervene while Pora's legal team were preparing an appeal to the Privy Council, but Mr Little said no appeal had been lodged so there was nothing stopping the minister.
"Any minister of justice should be seriously concerned whenever there is a credible claim of miscarriage of justice and should act promptly to establish the facts and ensure public confidence in the police and judiciary is not unnecessarily undermined."
Police Association president Greg O'Connor told the Weekend Herald that the inquiry should not be run by the police but could be a ministerial inquiry conducted by a Queen's Counsel. "It's a justice-sector issue. It's not a police issue. The police can't walk up to the prison and say, 'Let him out'."
Mr O'Connor said there were sufficient issues that raised the prospect that a miscarriage had occurred, and significant disquiet among police.
"This is a case that really does need a review. There are enough experienced police from the time and even from now who are uncomfortable with the fact that Teina Pora is in prison for this crime."
The Association was hearing concerns from more and more police, he said. "I think it is one that needs a review quite quickly."
Mr O'Connor said there had always been a number of police, particularly in south Auckland, who weren't comfortable that Pora was the offender, and had been surprised when he was convicted at his second trial.
The Weekend Herald first revealed in May last year that the detective whose expert testimony convicted Malcolm Rewa of raping Ms Burdett believed Pora was wrongly convicted of her murder.
In 1996, DNA testing showed the semen inside Ms Burdett, who was killed in 1992, belonged to Rewa, a serial rapist who was unknown at the time of Pora's trial but was convicted in 1998 of raping her.
Detective Dave Henwood, a multi-award-winning criminal profiler, said there were no doubts in his mind Rewa committed the crime alone, and that Pora was innocent.
Since then, more doubt has been cast on Pora's conviction, including revelations on TV3's Third Degree this week that a woman raped by Rewa two weeks before the attack on Ms Burdett said she, too, believed an innocent man was in jail.
The programme also discovered that before Pora's first trial, police had believed Ms Burdett was attacked by a serial rapist but did not disclose this to Pora's lawyers.
Meanwhile, the investigator who says there is new evidence to show Pora is innocent has accused the police hierarchy of being myopic, selective and wasting public money.
Tim McKinnel, a former police detective, has collected new expert opinion evidence that concludes Pora gave a false confession and that Rewa attacked Ms Burdett on his own.
He has questioned the police's refusal to review the whole case and attacked its claim that Pora, Rewa and an unknown third man were involved.
"This talk of a third offender is not supported by any evidence other than Teina Pora's (false) confessions. I can't see how they can justify spending probably tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on this ridiculous search for somebody that any objective review will show doesn't exist.
"If they were genuinely looking for a third offender, why did they do nothing for 10 years?"
