Field appeals again

March 21st, 2011 at 10:04 am by David Farrar

As readers will know, Labour has never ever said that they think was guilry of bribery and corruption. Their sole public statement to date has been they “acknowledge” the verdict.

It seems Field himself shares their view that he is not guilty of anything more than working hard for his constituents as he has appealed again. Belinda McCammon at Stuff reports:

Disgraced former Labour MP Taito Phillip Field has been granted leave to appeal his 2009 conviction for fraud, by the Supreme Court.

Field, who is currently serving a six year jail term, was found guilty of 11 of 12 charges of bribery and corruption as an MP over having Thai nationals carry out work on his properties in return for immigration assistance between November 2002 and October 2005.

He was also found guilty of 15 of 23 charges of wilfully attempting to obstruct or pervert the course of justice, alleging he tried to derail investigations into the work on his homes. …

In a judgement released by the Supreme Court today Field was given leave to appeal his sentence on the grounds of whether the Court of Appeal had correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe.

The Supreme Court sits in Wellington. I might sit it on that case once it is heard.

Tags:

22 Responses to “Field appeals again”

  1. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    Since the labour party is so sure hes innocent will they be turning up to offer their moral support?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. deanknight (263 comments) says:

    Or, perhaps, the case actually raises tricky issues about the proper meaning of “corruptly” in the context of the offence, with the Court of Appeal being presented with conflicting authority on the point…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Murray (8,842 comments) says:

    ….or maybe hes guilty as hell and is suffering from a heightened sense of entitlement.

    Gee where have we seen that before?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    In a judgement released by the Supreme Court today Field was given leave to appeal his sentence on the grounds of whether the Court of Appeal had correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe.

    This is what the NZPA article said, and now what the Stuff article says.

    Field was denied leave to appeal his sentence. He was also denied leave to appeal his convictions for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Even if he wins this appeal, he’s not “getting away with” everything. The convictions related to trying to get witnesses to stay silent etc. will remain.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nookin (3,185 comments) says:

    Thanks, Graeme. Clarity and accuracy are often very helpful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. 2boyz (255 comments) says:

    He was only ever guilty of helping others, yeah right!

    Should get out early through good behaviour unless he’s joined a gang on the inside. he’s done the crime he should do the time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (13,571 comments) says:

    Nothing the Labour party does is illegal, when the hell will you guys accept that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Christopher Thomson (376 comments) says:

    What big bruv said! I refer you back to the Chris Trotter article. And from an ideological standpoint anything done in the name of socialism is always for the betterment of the majority so it must be right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. freedom101 (481 comments) says:

    Excellent, Philip Field in court in election year, and hopefully during the election campaign itself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. GPT1 (2,106 comments) says:

    The article refers to conviction to start and then repeatedly leave to appeal sentence – quite different things. Anyone know what leave has actually been given for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Graeme Edgeler (3,277 comments) says:

    GPT1 – yes. See my comment above.

    Leave granted to appeal convictions for corruption charges on correct test for corruption.
    Leave denied to appeal convictions on basis of evidential challenge.
    Leave denied to appeal convictions for perverting the course of justice.
    Leave denied to appeal sentence.

    http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/taito-phillip-hans-field-v-the-queen/at_download/fileDecision (9kB .pdf)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    This is the Supreme Court decision in it’s entirety (less than a page):

    (A) The application for leave to appeal is granted.
    (B) The approved ground is whether the Court of Appeal has in [2010] NZCA 556 correctly stated the test for corruptly accepting a bribe in terms of s 103 of the Crimes Act 1961.

    REASONS
    [1] Leave is not granted on the other proposed grounds which we consider to be unarguable. The finding that the appellant contemplated criminal proceedings when he did the things charged under s 117 was in our view not only open but virtually inevitable.

    [2] Mr Ingram QC was not acting under statutory power in conducting the inquiry and in any event was not a police or Crown agent. Mr Field was legally represented at the inquiry. There was nothing to prevent the prosecution leading evidence of what the appellant said to the inquiry.

    [3] The Court of Appeal has reviewed the sentences imposed on the appellant. The effective sentence of imprisonment for six years cannot be said to be manifestly excessive for the offending as a whole.

    Download here:
    http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/taito-phillip-hans-field-v-the-queen/at_download/fileDecision

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Chuck Bird (4,773 comments) says:

    It is not hard to guess why Labour will not say anything against Field. If Field wrote a book about Labour it would be far more damaging than any book Carter might write. Field would not worry about upsetting Clark or any in the Rainbow faction of the party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. RRM (9,667 comments) says:

    ….or maybe hes guilty as hell

    Maybe you could tell that to the Supreme Court of New Zealand, catapult, if you think they are idiots with no idea how to properly address these things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. BeaB (2,084 comments) says:

    I guess we’ll be footing the bill with legal aid. I don’t mind as long as the hearing is well reported – about the end of October.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. KH (694 comments) says:

    The most dangerous people are those who remain sure they were right to do the criminal act they did.

    The Labour party can never do anything illegal. Tick
    Phillip High was a high member of his Polynesian community and deserved what he took. Tick
    Titiwhai Harawira only assaulted a mental health client because he deserved it. Tick
    Hone Harawira deserved what he ripped of his taxpayers in Paris. Tick

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. DJP6-25 (1,313 comments) says:

    big bruv 10:35am. Yes, that’s right. Of course us un enlightened plebs can’t be expected to understand that. Only the enlightened ones can. Suspension of disbeleif is an essentila skill for socialists to acquire.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rex Widerstrom (5,330 comments) says:

    Perhaps it might be simpler for all concerned if we taxpayers demanded a law which said “We pay you pretty damned well as an MP… about three times the average wage and a hell of a lot more than many of you could command in the private sector. Furthermore, we expect you to work full time for the wages, perks, BMWs etc we give you. So while we’re your bosses there is to be no other activity carried out with the aim of gaining financial benefit, in cash or in kind. Never mind whether it’s corrupt or not – no second job while you’re an MP”.

    An exemption for the owners of farms and existing businesses only insofar as they’re managed by an independent third party with no proceeds going to the owner till after their term of office, so as to maintain asset ownership. But it’s usually not the independently wealthy ones who can be bothered risking their Parliamentary careers for a bit of spare cash anyway… it’s the dropkicks who’d be lucky to make $30,000 in the private sector and get greedy when they get attached to the public teat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. toad (3,673 comments) says:

    @Rex Widerstrom 4:24 pm

    But it’s usually not the independently wealthy ones who can be bothered risking their Parliamentary careers for a bit of spare cash anyway… it’s the dropkicks who’d be lucky to make $30,000 in the private sector…

    Um, Double Dipton?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Bevan (3,965 comments) says:

    Um, Double Dipton?

    Refreash my memory. What did Bill English do that was illegal?

    Compared to say, the way the greens run their superannuation fund.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. starboard (2,492 comments) says:

    heh..good one Bevan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Richard Hurst (798 comments) says:

    Why oh why isn’t Winston in there with Taito?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.