KEY POINTS:
A senior judge has strongly criticised the fact that independent MP Taito Phillip Field cannot appeal a crucial decision in his fight against multiple charges of bribery.
Justice Robert Chambers yesterday took the unusual step of attacking the law - suggesting it was wrong in principle and needed
to be changed - in a Court of Appeal decision that denied the Mangere MP the right to appeal the High Court's ruling that police can lay charges against him.
Field faces 15 counts of bribery and 25 of attempting to pervert the course of justice in relation to allegations that he gave immigration assistance to people in return for their performing cut-price building work on his properties.
The offending is alleged to have occurred from about 2003 to late last year, and the legal case is ground-breaking because it is the first time such charges have been sought against a sitting MP.
Field's lawyers have battled the police case every step of the way so far and tried to stop the prosecution before it even began by challenging the police's efforts to secure a High Court judge's permission to lay charges.
The High Court last month granted police permission to lay charges against Field, and yesterday the Court of Appeal ruled that decision could not be appealed - although Justice Chambers clearly wasn't happy at having to rule that way.
"I have come to that conclusion with some reluctance, as I believe he should have been able to appeal," the judge wrote at the end of the decision.
"But the law is clear: there is no possibility of appeal."
Justice Chambers was one of three judges who heard arguments about the right to appeal. The others were the president of the Court of Appeal, Justice William Young and Justice Ellen France. All three agreed Field could not appeal.
Justice Chambers added his own thoughts to the end of the judgment separately, in which he said such decisions by the High Court should be appealable. "I do think ... the law needs to be changed."
He suggested the way the law was written was not intentional, and emphasised the importance of a prosecution against an MP.
"The importance of the leave decision to the member of Parliament sought to be charged cannot be underestimated," Justice Chambers said.
"Once the prosecution is under way, the member's political future is probably irretrievably damaged, whatever the jury's ultimate verdict.
"It is no answer that a 'wrong' leave decision could in theory be challenged in the event the member of Parliament was convicted."
It was "wrong in principle" that the High Court's decision could not be challenged.
He stressed that no inference should be drawn from his opinion as to his views on Field's prosecution.
Field's lawyer, Satiu Simativa Perese, said yesterday the MP did not wish to comment on the ruling, but had instructed him to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court as quickly as possible.
The former minister in Helen Clark's Government is adamant he is innocent of the charges and has said he wants the case cleared up before next year's election.
