An interesting defence for Field

The Herald has a story on the application to the High Court to lay bribery and corruption charges against Taito Phillip Field.

What I find fascinating is the defence offered by Field’s lawyer.

Mr Field’s lawyer Paul Dacre said the argument was over bribery and not corruption, and that the charges could only be allowed if both parties to the transaction were aware it was illegal.

Crown prosecutor Simon Moore said there was no need to establish whether the workers were willing parties

Now what I read from this is that Dacre concedes that the transactions were illegal and that Field knew they were illegal, but that if the immigrants didn’t realise that their working on his house for free was illegal, then Field is not guilty or has no case to answer.

I’d be worried if my lawyer offered a defence against bribery that I knew what I was doing was illegal, but that those paying me did not!