Beware the lawyer’s words
October 6th, 2010 at 9:31 am by David FarrarThe Herald reports:
Mr Brown, the Mayor of Manukau, who has supported the campaign of the charged candidate, yesterday said he was disappointed with the accused and anyone else who abused the democratic process.
Was he disappointed enough to ask the candidate to stop using this photo of Len Brown, with him, on his election pamphlet?
But Judge Simpson was forced to grant interim suppression when the man’s lawyer, Howard Lawry, said he would appeal against her ruling.
The identity of the Super City candidate will be kept secret until the appeal can be heard in the High Court. The Herald will join the police in opposing the suppression application.
On behalf of the police, Crown prosecutor Robin McCoubrey opposed suppression for the candidate. He said there was strong public interest in the name of a person accused of fraudulent activities affecting the electoral roll.
Mr Lawry said naming his client, who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, would jeopardise his chances in the election.
Mr Lawry said that if his client’s name was suppressed, the position of other candidates was protected.
This was because if he were elected, then found guilty as charged, the election result could be revoked.
Not really. There is no provision to revoke an election result if a candidate after the election is found guilty.
One can do an electoral petition to have an election declare invalid, but these must be lodged within 21 days of the result. There is no way any trial will be concluded in that time.
Sadly, by appealing, the name remains suppressed until Thursday afternoon probably, and by then it is too late to mail your vote in.
UPDATE: A reader points out that if the accused is elected, and found guilty of a crime carrying a maximum sentence of two or more years jail, then they forfeit their seat.
Related posts:
- Will Daljit Singh be elected?
- Previous post hidden
- Why we need a register of name supression orders
- Search Terms
October 6th, 2010 at 9:34 am
Little message for Andrew. This is all the labour parties number 3′s pal.
You didn’t far enough, fast enough or early enough.
Labour labour labour.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:42 am
Lying, cheating, thieving SCUM
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:44 am
I SAID labour Guy.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:45 am
Possibly the pamphlet was printed and sent out before this became an issue?
Probably best for the Nat’s not to push too hard on Brown for something that seems quite disconnected from him, or they might be asked ‘How’s that Exclusive Bretheren thing working out then?’ Old news, but a good diversion.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:46 am
Did you SEE the size of that red herrring????
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:53 am
I tell you one thing, if this rooster gets both elected and found guilty, there will be major protests.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:54 am
Labour are struggling to find any relevance in the current age. I would just like to see a short, sharp piece of legislation that makes it an
OPT IN for political donations to any Union or Student Body. An Opt in that is left till 90 days minimum, post membership acceptance.
An Opt In that has no penalties or either inducements.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:57 am
I agree with the innocent until proven guilty bit and can understand why the 48 hour suppression is in place but, after the refusal to prosecute the last (from the same political party) PM for fraud and other offenses wonder whether the timing of the arrest wasn’t deliberate.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Whoops @ 9:45am – it is not really accurate to say Brown seems quite disconnected from the charged candidate.
Sure the candidate facing charges wanted votes to go to him but he is a local board candidate not a Mayoral candidate, and included with every ballot paper was a separate voting paper for Mayor.
Brown (and no one else) stood to benefit from receiving all those 300 fraudulent mayoral votes. So Brown would have been a direct beneficiary from vote rigging..
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:05 am
Did anyone else pick up the irony in the accused in a case of electoral fraud appearing in the District Court before Judge Heather Simpson?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2010/10/andrew-little-washes-his-hands.html
That’s spooky!
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:14 am
@ MT_Tinman – I beg to differ. Big ups to the police for acting when they did. It’s certainly made the case a topic of water-cooler discussion, and pretty much anyone who wants to know the identity of the accused can find it, as it was widely publicised prior to yesterday’s court appearance. If the police had wanted the issue to die, they would have held off until Monday of next week.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:18 am
…and there’s “record turnout” in Papatoetoe and Otara. I’d like to see a) the turnover at local KFC joints and b) how much petrol has been bought on Len’s credit card.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:24 am
The media are reporting that the percentage of votes received from South Auckland is far higher than in other parts of the country. Is it possible that the Police haven’t uncovered all the voter fraud?
Auckland is looking more and more like Chicago. Brown will end up like Daley, delivering improbably large voter turnouts for his chosen party every election.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:28 am
@Chris2
Are you saying Brown in some was orchestrated this?
If so, I think you’re wrong – my view (whatever that’s worth) is that Mr Whateverhisname was motivated by purely personal gain. I have no idea – just speculation based on the logic that Brown (for all his faults) isn’t stupid enough to put THAT much at risk for a few hundred votes.
I know that is what DPF seems to be implying (or is hoping is inferred).. it just seems unlikely.
[DPF: In no way do I think Len Brown was involved. What I do want to know is what steps did Len Brown and others in Labour take, when these allegations first surfaced. If it was me I wouldn't allow someone to keep using a photo of us posing together when they are under Police investigation]
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:36 am
Voter “turnout” is double the average davip. Makes you wonder if half them are fuadulent doesn’t it. This election is tainted and stinks on ice.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:37 am
In a way it dosnt matter if brown was involved or not. Upshot is every-vote that this guy put in would have marked Brown for Mayor as well – so by default he has benefited from this illegal voting.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:38 am
This is the problem with Labour branding Len Brown as a party candidate, when he is in fact Manukau’s candidate.
I doubt that Len Brown had anything to do with it, and I also doubt that John Banks had anything to do with the voting scam in the North Shore either.
David P, have you seen the figures? if by “far higher” you’re referring to the 5-10 percent increase, than yes you’re right. I wouldn’t trust the sensationalisation of our media sources though.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:40 am
You think anyone feel for that slight of hand Fale? Think you convinced anyone that Brown is squeaky clean and Banks is Lord Vadar?
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:43 am
Murray, I think it is far too late in the ball game to even try. But we all know that it almost appears as if Banks has conceded defeat already, wouldn’t you agree?
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:45 am
If you think there’s a chance I might agree with anyone you’ve never even heard of me let alone have any familarity with me.
Assuming I’ll agree with an inept aplication of neurolingusitic programming makes me thing you believe in lotto as an investment oportunity and that scientists will one day find the fosilised remains of a unicorn.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:55 am
Fale AL>have you seen the figures?
Only what is being reported in the media, which is that the returns in South Auckland are around 30% while they’re around 20% for the rest of the city. Either the people of South Auckland have suddenly become very democracy minded, but this hasn’t effected the rest of the population of the city. Or Labour have an efficient (KFC-driven?) party organisation in South Auckland, but not in the rest of the city. Or something isn’t right.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Whoops @ at 10:28 am
Brown won’t have had involvement in this vote rigging.
If you more carefully re-read my post at 9:58am you will see that I wrote Brown will have been the beneficiary of the vote for Mayor.
The candidate facing charges wanted to get himself elected to a local board, but there was also a ballot paper for Mayor included in the voting package, and I can well imagine after securing his own local votes for himself, he would have used the Mayoral voting paper to cast a vote for Brown.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:17 am
I’d be careful with this image – anyone familiar with it (and it is in the public domain) could easily identify the accused from your posting here…
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:25 am
IMHO the low trunout on the Shore and in the West is due to those areas not having a candidate with a show of winning so they have shrugged their collective shoulders and thrown the voting paper away.
BIG MISTAKE FOLKS
Lenny(the ratepayers paid for my birthday party) is going to F… you over big time if he gets enough support around the Council table.
You will see rating differentials like you have never seen before.
HIS PEOPLES rates will be held or decrease and the RICH PRICKS rates will double.
Reason The plan was always to shift more costs from Central to Local Government while maintaining the same level of Central taxes.
Soooooo the Super City Council will raise more money to waste.
I reckon Lennys looking at double the rate of inflation at least for the smucks who arent HIS PEOPLE.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:30 am
davidp, the voting increase in South Auckland is roughly 14 percent for nearly every political district. However, the campaign for this year was far more effective:
- online activism, particularly with social-networking sites
- consultation with major Pacific churchs (Pacific church leaders agreed to remind congregations about the importance of voting, seldom occupied in previous local-body elections)
- local marae were also utilised
- Len Brown also made strong head-way in South Auckland with his favour of grass-root community action under the Manukau City Council. He is a well-respected leader, who is more than happy to celebrate the diversity of Counties Manukau. It wasn’t that hard for people to invest their trust in his leadership to take the region forward.
- There was also an effective scare-mongering tactic used against John Banks. This was along the lines of “John Banks favours conservatism, and there will be little for minority groups”. “Banks will not invest in cultural festivities, or initiatives”. “Banks will adopt surcharges for our free libraries, swimming pools, and recreational services”. “Banks will expand charges for parking”. And so fourth. This was a very effective campaign tool for a region like South Auckland.
I’m not surprised with the historically high turn-out. But I am also happy to support investigations, should they be deemed necessary.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Sam (11:17am) – the only face I recognise in this photograph is the stupid grinning NZ Labour Party bitch (and AK Supercity mayoral candidate) Len Brown. Is he the accused?
I can’t be arsed trying to figure out who the person accused of voter fraud “associated with the NZ Labour Party” is – only a moron would believe that any of them are squeaky clean.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:40 am
“Was he disappointed enough to ask the candidate to stop using this photo of Len Brown, with him, on his election pamphlet?”
Oh, of course. Len should have asked the candidate to visit all of the people to whom his pamphlet had been delivered, and taken them all back.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 11:42 am
By stating the accused is a candidate, has his own lawyer breached the suppression order?
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 12:47 pm
@ Slightlyrighty – no; he’s merely stated the obvious.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 1:15 pm
I believe this corruption of an already partially completed election by the candidate associated with the Labour Party should render this election invalid.
Votes have already been cast and cannot be returned. The identity of the candidate associated with the Labour Party is now supressed. Any subsequent votes (That should be mailed today at the latest) are not being made with knowledge of this corruption.
The whole election is suspect and should be scrapped and restarted. I do not believe that any right-minded Aucklander (Whatever their political affiliation) should accept the governance of Auckland Super City when it was potentially fraudulently obtained.
I wonder what would happen if, next time my rates bill comes in, I write back refusing payment because I reject the results of this election based off the corruption of the Labour Party candidate and do not recognise the electoral legality of this council.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
DPF: “There is no provision to revoke an election result if a candidate after the election is found guilty. One can do an electoral petition to have an election declare invalid, but these must be lodged within 21 days of the result. There is no way any trial will be concluded in that time.”
Might like to look at the Local Government Act 2002, Schedule 7(1)(b) … any elected member of a local authority (i.e. Super City councillor) convicted of an offence carrying a sentence of 2 years or more loses her or his office. The accused in this case have been charged with forgery under the Crimes Act (for faking enrollment forms). It carries a sentence of 10 years. Hence, if the accused candidate wins and is then convicted, he will lose office.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 3:53 pm
If the accused seek Legal Aid, there are three lawyers who will no longer be able to assist (I wonder if they are real New Zealanders?)
The Legal Services Agency (LSA) has published the names of three lawyers whose legal aid listing approvals have been cancelled for failing to meet the standards and obligations required.
Auckland lawyers Iuni Sapolu, Josie Fuimaono-Sapolu and Brett Ravelich can no longer provide legal aid services.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/legal-aid-lawyer-cancellations/5/66336
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
There have been many assumptions and accusations of widespread voting fraud, but the facts don’t back that up.
Two people have been arrested, names suppressed. If either are found guilty after being voted in the will lose their seats.
The Electoral Commission uncovered the problem, it would have been simple for them to check too many voters at one address – the number uncovered was about 60 (from memory), they will have presumably picked up anything similar if it existed.
The Labour Party has admitted a connection with one those involved but states that they have acted independently of the party on this – because it is so isolated there is a good reason to believe that. It would be incredible if a party would jeopardise an election, especially for such an insignificant number of votes.
Don’t know of anything concrete beyond that, all the other accusations are guesses, attempts at smears, politicking and jumping to conclusions based on nothing.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 7:23 pm
Yes they do, Pete. It’s a causative trail since Whale broke it over a week ago, which has lead to this, step by step. Every step the information since day one has been consistent. When it looks, quakes, etc.
The issue I as a conservative have with Liarbore Pete is that had this been the Nats, Liarbore would have been all over it. So would, frankly, the media. Who cares if it skews the election? You wouldn’t, if this were the Nats.
But what’s this?
We don’t see, apparently, the evil vicious nasty conservative playing the gutter tactics YOU all would have and do play all the time, do we? No. Instead we see them treating the election process fairly, even though YOU wouldn’t have.
That’s what gets me. One of the things.
Vote:October 6th, 2010 at 7:34 pm
What’s with the YOU thing? I don’t accuse YOU of stealing babies identities, you’re a confessed conservative but I have no idea if you have any connection with Act or ex-lawyers so have no reason to think you’d do anything like that.
The electoral fraud thing is tricky, heaps of resources have been thrown at it but it still has to go through due process. There’s just not enough time for the system to deal with it properly in the voting timeframe.
Vote: