KEY POINTS:
A High Court judge today reserved his decision on whether an application to prosecute Independent MP Taito Phillip Field on 15 bribery and corruption-related offences should be allowed.
Justice Randerson made his announcement at the end of a hearing in the High Court in Auckland this morning.
The charges concern allegations Mr Field gave immigration help to Asian overstayers in return for cheap labour. They each carry a maximum prison sentence of seven years' jail.
As he arrived for the hearing Mr Field declared his innocence.
"I have nothing to hide," he told the large media contingent outside the court.
Police are seeking the permission of a High Court judge to charge the independent MP following an eight-month investigation into his dealings with migrants.
Field's lawyers oppose the application, in an effort to stop the prosecution before it even begins.
At issue in today's hearing was exactly why the leave of a High Court judge is needed before an MP can be charged with bribery and corruption-related offences.
The quirk of law appears in section 103 of the Crimes Act, and because it is the first time police have sought to prosecute under that section, lawyers have been dusting off their legal texts to trace its origin.
In New Zealand law, the requirement dates back to the late 1950s and was passed into law in 1961.
It was based on Canada's Criminal Code, but there is little New Zealand commentary from that time about what was intended when the hurdle of High Court approval was attached to bribery charges against an MP.
Deputy Prime Minister and Attorney-General Michael Cullen has recently told Parliament that the legal hurdle is there to protect MPs against a Government seeking to lay charges without a proper basis.
Papers filed in the High Court by police lawyers argue that an examination of the sufficiency of evidence against Field is not yet needed.
The Crown instead believes that all it must do is prove that the prosecution would be brought in good faith and without improper influence.
But Field's team - high-profile criminal lawyer Paul Dacre and long-time representative Simativa Perese - will argue differently.
Before Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson they will submit that the test required before charges can be laid against Field is much wider than the police suggest.
Field's team believes the High Court has the right to review the police file on the former Labour MP and form a view as to whether the procedure that has been followed is fair.
While there has been speculation that Field's legal team might even take the sensational path of arguing that the prosecution is politically motivated, that will not happen at this early stage.
Field's lawyers instead intend to focus on the legal issue of what the section of law requires the Crown to prove in order to get leave to prosecute the MP.
After today's arguments have been heard and Justice Randerson has ruled on what test he will apply to the police application, it is likely to be late July before the court hears the actual application.
- with NZPA
