KEY POINTS:
A defiant Taito Phillip Field arrived at the High Court at Auckland proclaiming his innocence, and left three hours later saying the same thing.
The outcast Mangere MP made New Zealand legal history yesterday when he became the first serving politician to appear in court as the subject of a Crown application to mount a prosecution.
Mr Field told a large media contingent before the hearing he thought it was "important that I front", though formal charges have yet to be laid.
Not that yesterday's hearing was to decide whether Mr Field will face charges. It was instead a hearing to determine whether the Crown is able to seek leave to bring a prosecution - and what the High Court test of the allegations would be.
In the end, Chief High Court Judge Tony Randerson reserved his decision, to be released "in due course".
Police say they intend laying 15 bribery and corruption charges against Mr Field, but under the Crimes Act 1961 must seek High Court permission to prosecute a sitting MP.
The charges allege the former Labour MP gave immigration assistance to Asian overstayers in return for cheap labour.
Crown Solicitor Simon Moore told Justice Randerson the charges needed to undergo High Court scrutiny in case they were laid for an "improper collateral purpose", such as to suit another's political agenda, or for malicious or "vexatious" purposes.
Normally, the decision to mount a prosecution is at the discretion of the Attorney General, but as that is a political appointment, in the case of Mr Field the prosecution could appear politically motivated "even by appearance, if not in practice", Mr Moore said.
It was "conceivable, if not likely" that the defence would claim the prosecution was politically motivated, he said.
Justice Randerson said there was "no evidence whatsoever" that such a defence would be mounted, and outlined two key issues for Crown prosecutors: what the threshold of sufficient evidence was, and whether there should be a more wide-reaching than normal court examination of the police file on Mr Field.
Mr Moore said an appropriate threshold for allowing leave to prosecute was if the prosecution had been brought in good faith and without undue influence.
Mr Field's lawyer, Paul Dacre, told the court the charges went "to the very core" of the parliamentary system, and the separation of the legal and executive branches of Government.
There was "huge public interest" in the case, which could affect the way Parliament functioned.
The need to seek High Court leave to prosecute Mr Field means the court would effectively have to run a depositions hearing - a hearing to decide if a prima facie case exists against a defendant - before Mr Field has even been charged with a crime.
Defence lawyers will on Friday receive full disclosure of Crown evidence against Mr Field.
After the hearing yesterday Mr Field proclaimed his innocence, saying he had attended court "as a courtesy" to the legal system.
He was pleased - but defiant - that disclosure of evidence was imminent.
"In all fairness I should know what I am accused of. They [prosecutors] have had plenty of time."
He said the investigation had taken an emotional toll, but it was "a process we have to face".
When asked if he believed the prosecution was politically motivated, he replied: "The good Lord knows the reality of things."
Another leave hearing is to be held in coming weeks, after defence lawyers have had an opportunity to review the Crown evidence.
