Taito Phillip Hans Field v The Queen

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 3/2011
[2011] NZSC 21

TAITO PHILLIP HANS FIELD

THE QUEEN

Court: Blanchard, McGrath and William Young JJ

Counsel: H A Cull QC and M A Karam for Appellant
D B Collins QC Solicitor-General for Respondent

Judgment: 17 March 2011

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for leave to appeal is granted.
BThe 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

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.
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.
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.

Solicitors:
Tripe Matthews & Feist, Wellington for Appellant
Crown Law Office, Wellington

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Taito Phillip Hans Field brought an appeal against his conviction and sentence for bribery and other related offences. The case was heard by Blanchard, McGrath, and William Young JJ in the Supreme Court of New Zealand. The appellant argued that the Court of Appeal had misapplied the test for corruptly accepting a bribe under section 103 of the Crimes Act 1961. The court granted leave to appeal on this specific ground but dismissed the other proposed grounds as unarguable.

The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant contemplated criminal proceedings when he committed the acts charged under section 117. The inquiry conducted by Mr. Ingram QC was not under statutory power, and the appellant was legally represented, so there were no grounds to exclude evidence of his statements. The court also reviewed the sentences imposed, determining that the effective sentence of imprisonment for six years was not manifestly excessive for the offences committed.

The Supreme Court's decision focused on the specific issue of the test for corrupt acceptance of a bribe. The court granted leave to appeal on this point, while rejecting the other grounds as not arguable. The appellant's argument that the Court of Appeal misstated the test under section 103 of the Crimes Act 1961 was deemed arguable. The court found that the evidence supported the appellant's contemplation of criminal proceedings and that the inquiry's nature did not affect the admissibility of his statements. The sentences imposed were reviewed and found not to be manifestly excessive.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established