Field to stand trial
As widely expected, former Labour Minister and MP Taito Phillip Field will stand trial on 40 counts of bribery and corruption.
Lawyers who know about these things tell me that as his call-over is on July 30, a trial in November is most likely. What unfortunate timing if that should be the case. How many Ministers will be appearing as witnesses to explain they knew nothing, they saw nothing, they knew nothing – they just kept approving applications for their mate.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Labour, Taito Philip Field
May 9th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
No matter…..
There are no consequences for people like Phil
If guilty you’ll hear the clatter of “community service” rakes on nature strips… not 4-6 years.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Mr Field is, of course, innocent until proven guilty.
He is, however, guilty or not, another example of the failure of multiculturalism.
I only hope that, if he is found guilty, he receives NZ rather than Samoan justice – even if it is nothing like as severe as the punishment he would deserve.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Good job.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Please let Clark be called, I can just see Fields lawyer asking her to repeat the famous line “He is only guilty of trying to help people”
This is one time she will not be allowed to avoid giving an answer, she will not be allowed to drift off onto some other line nor can she blame the National party, seeing her in the dock would gift the election to the Nat’s on a plate.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Yeah and I dream of waking up with Kirsten Dunst BB.
Which is more likely to happen?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
What bollocks.
If guilty, it is a failure of TPFs personal integrity. If not guilty, it is a failure of our justice system to have let things stretch out this long. ‘Multiculturalism’ (whatever that is) doesn’t come into it. I’m picking failed personal integrity. We’ll see.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Phil better make sure he hasn’t got a Labour lawyer, one who “understands the big picture”.
Of such oversights are sacrificial lambs made.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
At least it shows all those in “The Service of the Crown” from the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Helen Clark down that they are all subject to the law. HOW MANY GUILTY PARTIES ARE THERE IN THE IMMIGRATION SERVICES SCANDAL, if Police Commissioner Howard Broad decides to investigate the complaints 28 April 2008 laid with him of trangressions of the Crimes Act 1961, by all those involved in the Mary Anne Scandal from a couple of Ministers down.
I am sure adamsmith1922 will be delighted with the result.
I am grateful for his input
May 9th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
There is a cultural aspect in that it is customary for Samoan people to give gifts to those in respected positions. I’m not sure if that is true for Thai people?
So Big Dad may argue that it would have been culturally offensive to turn down gifts, offers of free labour, etc.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Oh noes, teh cultural relativism defence!!1
May 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
He might Ant….but of course NZ law is paramount….at least for a while…..so his lawyer will tell him claiming tribal custom supercedes the law is moot.
Sort of an admission of guilt.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
The evidence given at Depositions, as reported, made the trial inevitable. There is clearly a case to answer (anyone hear Clark talking about the Ingram report exonerating him now???). Whether the Crown can prove the charges to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt is a matter for the jury (and a significantly higher standard of proof than that required to have the case set down).
One thing that is clear. Clark’s actions prior to the last election where nothing more than sweeping the issue under the carpet to avoid embarrassmment. The inquiry, by reason of the terms of the inquiry, was nothing but a joke.
One can only hope that the media will ask why Clark effectively held up the process of justice.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
Big bruv – to be fair Clark would be in the witness stand not the dock.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Field will never be found guilty of anything he has done wrong.
Corrupt yes, guilty? no way, it just dont work like that
May 9th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
big bruv said: Please let Clark be called, I can just see Fields lawyer asking her to repeat the famous line “He is only guilty of trying to help people”
To be fair, big bruv, there was a significant body of evidence deposed by witnesses at the depositions hearing that asserted people were asked by Field to lie, and did lie, to the Ingram inquiry. If that is the case, then the inquiry was systematically misled, and I think it quite understandable that Clark and others, relying on erroneous findings of that inquiry based on perjured evidence, then also made statements that were erroneous in fact.
And before the Ingram inquiry, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Clark had to rely on what she was told by Field, the truth of which is now in serious doubt. But natural justice demanded that she could not have acted to sack Field from Cabinet on the basis of what were at that stage no more than allegations of impropriety.
BYW, don’t suggest I am defending her for political reasons. After the flip-flop on the emissions trading scheme, she is very far from having any political support from me at the moment.
[DPF: Toad I strongly disagree. First of all Shipley sacked Tamihere in 1999 for similiar conduct. Prebble did not want for the court case to get rid of Donna. Party Leaders can inquire into allegations of misconduct and often have in the past. As for lying to the inquiry - she set up an inquiry with no powers so people could lie to it. She was asked for a more robust inquiry and refused. The reviewer asked if additional powers were possible and was told they were not. She also set up the terms of reference as it was impossible for Field to be found to have done anything wrong.]
May 9th, 2008 at 9:54 pm
If the trial is in November, what odds for an early election??
May 9th, 2008 at 9:56 pm
toad, the terms of reference for that enquiry were skewed, as Ingram himself said when he released his findings. So why, do you imagine, Clark skewed the terms of reference?
On another but related note, I totally agree with GPT1, I hope the media thoroughly investigate Clark’s actions in that enquiry. Can you imagine what they would have already done with it had it been a conservative administration that did this (not what TPF did but the cover-up and subsequent resistance and denial until the pressure became too great to resist)?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Toad, the flaws in the enquiry and the questions raised by the results were abundantly clear. Yet the Prime Minister chose to stand by Philip Field, on National TV, and support him. That was a deliberate political choice, for which she should pay the price
May 10th, 2008 at 1:58 am
getstaffed
If you don’t know what multiculturalism is, visit NZ some time.
Call in to almost any school in, listen to any ‘left-wing’ politician (especially the women, start with Ms. Clark) or tune in to National Radio.
Mr Field is one of multiculturalism’s Poster Boys. This criminality – if that’s what it is – has implications much wider than Mr Field and his personal modus operandi.
May 10th, 2008 at 3:28 am
A 4-6 week jury trial in the High Court 4 months after the first call-over. Get real unless the Court wishes to grant unusual and unprecedented priority for this matter. In any event a Novemeber trial will be during the election campaign or just after it. And if it cannot be settled before the e;ection then the trial might as well go ahead in the latter half of next year which would be normal.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Toad
While I am delighted that you have now finally seen Clark to be the liar she is you cannot defend her part in the Ingram inquiry.
If it were true as you suggest that she is also a victim of TPF’s lies then why did she set such narrow terms of reference for the Ingram inquiry?, make no mistake Toad she had a bloody good idea what was going on as did Damien O’Connor.
May 10th, 2008 at 9:38 am
big bruv: Helen Clark was e-mailed the complaint 19 July 2006 against Field, laid with the Commissioner of Police, which the Police ignored, and it was not until 31 August 2006 that Howard Broad announced: “What a good litle boy am I? I’ve read the Ingram report and decided there is a case for him to answer. Go to it boys”!
May 10th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Hey anthony that might even be slightly relevent if we were in Samoa but we aint.
New Zealand MP, New Zealand law. Long past time we enforced it. And not one person believes that this would have happened if he was still holding hands with Helen.
May 10th, 2008 at 10:36 am
JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES: e-mail plus documentary evidence sent to members of Parliament 31 July 2006
I allege Corruption in the New Zealand House of Representatives
WARNING TO
Members of Parliament, Officials in the Bureaucracy supplied by the taxpayer to support our Democratic Parliament and members of all other Government appointed bodies including the media:
Remember you are in the service of the Crown and as such are subject to the laws of this land. Sections of the Crimes Act 1961 are applicable to those in the Service of the Crown
Alleged breaches of any statute by those in the Service of the Crown should by natural justice be investigated. Members of Parliament have ganged together to prevent an extended inquiry into the activities of ex Minister Phillip Taito Field. It is a scandal that the Prime Minister 10 months ago ordered a toothless inquiry at a cost of nearly $! /2M that resolved little but raised allegations of further corruption. However it is par for the course for our Prime Minister who told the House 10 April 2003 “That all allegations of corruption would be investigated”. One week later she turned her back on: “CORRUPTION (PUBLIC SECTOR). This was an allegation against the Police. It was “buried”.
It is a disgrace to Parliament and brings the whole Chamber into disrepute when it is left to the ordinary citizen, in this case Libertarianz Party Leader Bernard Darnton to file papers in the High Court sueing Prime Minister Helen Clark for misappropriation of public funds.
However this same complaint was laid 5 months earlier with Acting Police Commissioner Steve Long. with later explanatory complaints. I allege they were never investigated – they were covered up. Other complaints to the Serious Fraud Office were fobbed off by claiming 30 June 2006: “The funding of the Labour Party pledge card has been considered by the Police and does not require Serious Fraud Office investigation” The SFO could not affirm the source of the media report on whish their response was based!
The Auditor-General 11 July 2006 “: the Controller and Auditor –General’s inquiry into pre election advertising by parliamentary parties is still proceeding”. This was in response to my complaint 10 May 2006: In my view this is misuse of Public Funds (Parliamentary Services) by the Labour Government on behalf of the Labour Party and constitutes an offence. You need to investigate this complaint of mine.
Consider Page 1 : 1 MARCH 2006 ELECTORAL COMMITTEE AND CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER – COMPLAINT from Assistant Commissioner B Marshal to Act Deputy Commissioner P Carson Re Inspector R Peoples report: The hand written note “Review by yourself (Dr A R Jack) and Crown Law Office.
Dr A R Jack knew that there he already had a complaint in from me about the misappropriation of funds from the leader’s funds when he was dealing with the above complaint of over expenditure by Political Parties at election time.
Prima Facie evidence of a cover-up is Dr Jack’s letter to me 15 03 2006 in response to my letter 10 03 2006….“Thanking you for your views and taking the time to write. The matter is already under investigation by Police as a result of a referral by the Electoral Commission. The result of the investigation will be announced in due course”.(At the time of writing the investigation was complete).
May 10th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Good stuff. Labour must be running a transparent government.
May 10th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
It is fairly instructive on this post to note the absense of GWW3, RN, Jum. James S, Tane et al … wonder why?
May 12th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Ross – since TPF has gone to trial for this, that PROVES that ALL labour MPs / party officials are lying, corrupt, criminal COMMIE BASTARDS and the Kiwiblog right has been RIGHT ALL ALONG in this regard.
So yeah, all us leftie trolls are off home to slit our wrists at the general ignominy of it all. You got us there. Well done.