Comments on: The Field Charges

By: Treetop

Treetop — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:15:21 +0000

Frank: electoral over spending is just the tip of the iceburg.

By: Frank.

Frank. — Tue, 27 Nov 2007 04:43:02 +0000

Treetop: ” My main concern with the Field case is: how competent are the police?”

As competent as their “Comprehensive Investigation” into Electoral Over Spending.

By: Treetop

Treetop — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 23:50:01 +0000

Sir Alfred North’s inquiry in 1976 into Colin Moyle (then MP of Mangere) was Moyle’s undoing. I have harboured such resentment toward the police for 31 years because police perverted the course of justice and have done so on a number of occasions. Mr Broad knows who I am, the girl who dated the cop who spoke to Moyle. Had the ex boyfriend not tried to silence and bully me in February 1979, the CIB interview would not have caused a rebound effect to having been sexually violated when aged 7.

Were I to have it my way, I would have a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the police having lied to the last two ministers of police and two MPs. Are people aware that in 2002 when Clint Rickards was at PNHQ he replied on behalf of police commissioner files.

My main concern with the Field case is: how competent are the police?

By: gd

gd — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 22:56:57 +0000

Would be great if case was heard just before election campaign beginns and TPF lawyers calls Crazy to give evidence. Of course wont happen as she will be out of the country etc etc and the tame Chief Justice will get her off the hook

By: slightlyrighty

slightlyrighty — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:59:28 +0000

There have been some on the left who have said that because of the samoan custom of Lafo, there has been no offence because this was covered under cultural reasons. There are those who say he has done nothing wrong when this is taken into account.

If this is so, why the effort to cover his tracks after the event, leading to 25 charges for perverting the course of justice? The logic don’t work for this one.

By: Frank.

Frank. — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:20:03 +0000

DPF:”The 15 bribery charges need the permission of a High Court Judge, which was given. That permission is under appeal….”

The 15 bribery charges are the crux of the matter under the Crimes Act 1961 provided that Field is charged under the following:

“Bribe means any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit, whether direct or indirect:

Official means any person in the service of Her Majesty in right of New Zealand (whether that service is honorary or not, and whether it is within or outside New Zealand), or any member or employee of any local authority or public body, or any person employed in the Education service within the meaning of the [State Sector Act 1988]

25 Ignorance of law

The fact that an offender is ignorant of the law is not an excuse for any offence committed by him

102 Corruption and bribery of Minister of the Crown

1) Every Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a Minister or member of the Executive Council.

103 Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament

1) Every member of Parliament is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament

105 Corruption and bribery of official

(1) Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his official capacity

105A Corrupt use of official information
Every official is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who, whether within New Zealand or elsewhere, corruptly uses [[or discloses]] any information, acquired by him in his official capacity, to obtain, directly or indirectly, an advantage or a pecuniary gain for himself or any other pers

107 Contravention of statute
1) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year who, without lawful excuse, contravenes any enactment by wilfully doing any act which it forbids, or by wilfully omitting to do any act which it requires to be done, unless—

108 Perjury defined

1) Perjury is an assertion as to a matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge made by a witness in a judicial proceeding as part of his evidence on oath, whether the evidence is given in open Court or by affidavit or otherwise, that assertion being known to the witness to be false and being intended by him to mislead the tribunal holding the proceeding.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:08:46 +0000

Is it any coincidence that this case comes to court during a week when the house is not sitting?

By: burt

burt — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:55:52 +0000

1. Ten of making false or misleading statements to the Ingram inquiry

That would be the inquiry that exonerated him and showed he was only guilty of being helpful. – Shame on the govt for trying for so long to cover this up.

IMHO: The people who lied to protect him should also be charged.

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:37:17 +0000

Inadmissible evidence leaked to media , wouldn’t come from a certain black book would it ? I hope so ?

By: Reg

Reg — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:34:49 +0000

I guess the 10 charges relating to misleading the Ingram inquiry mean Helen Clark can change her position on this now Taito is a potential electoral competitor.
Quite convenient.
Some Cop will be fast-tracked for promotion- IF the charges stick!
If they don,t expect certain inadmissible evidence to be leaked to the Faifax media.

By: Castafiore

Castafiore — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:34:16 +0000

If you look at the charges they are not that seriously bad!!

Come on is that all !!!!

The first 10 charges;
Who would in their own inquisition want to give evidence against yourself (Ingram Inquiry)?
You are not required to say anything in a normal crimes act enquiry??

The next 8 procuring look to be very shakey; How would that be proved – sounds very like a trumped up charge.
Next 5; Ditto would apply especially if the Police enquiry didn’t like the amounts on your invoices – sounds like a David Henderson type trumped up charge!!
Same with next 2,
Final 15 :let us actually see the evidence- again you could create bribery out just about anything an MP does to help a constituent or member of the public

By: Right of way is Way of Right

Right of way is Way of Right — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:31:37 +0000

Will Phil Goff at al be called as witnesses? That I would love to see!

By: dad4justice

dad4justice — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:17:57 +0000

Forty charges and already people talk about prejudice and acquittals , wow , hold on, I knew the crown prosecutors and keystone cops are as thick as tractor tyres, but surely on the balance of probabilities and the sheer numbers of charges indicate a conviction is possible ? Or , are police and judges that dumb ? Yes I think anything could happen and I can’t wait for Miss Clark to give evidence ?

By: louie

louie — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 07:15:29 +0000

Making false statements to the Ingram inquiry that Beloved Leader cited as clearing him? Surely not.

By: Inventory2

Inventory2 — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:55:29 +0000

Great to see the TPF is insisting on the matter being dealt with prior to the election so as not to prejudice his chances of standing for election should he be acquitted. Hopefully, a very large pile of excrement will hit the aircondtioner in the leadup to the election campaign, right when it will cause maximum embarrassment to Dear Leader.

By: Swampash

Swampash — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:19:23 +0000

No he doesn’t, because if he epitomised the Government he wouldn’t be getting charged with anything.

By: big bruv

big bruv — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:06:44 +0000

I see all the left wing media luvvies are calling Field the “independent MP for Mangere” when his correct title at the time of these crimes was LABOUR party MP for Mangere.

The public need to be reminded that this man epitomizes the corrupt government we have in NZ.

By: Right of way is Way of Right

Right of way is Way of Right — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:52:59 +0000

Where there is smoke……

Surely the voters of South Auckland will not be taken in by this obviously corupt individual again!