McCready vs Browns

January 17th, 2014 at 10:32 am by David Farrar

blogs at Pundit on why he thinks Graeme McCready may not suceed in getting a private prosecution vs . The bottom line is that unless you have witnesses coming forward to allege some link between the free hotel rooms at Sky, and his support for their conference centre bid, then there is no proof.

I concur it is unlikely to go anywhere.

The Herald also reports that McCready is considering a private prosecution against Brown’s wife, :

Mr McCready said he would be in Auckland on Monday to file briefs of evidence in that matter and would also seek legal advice about whether there was enough evidence to lay charges against the Mayor’s wife Shan Inglis.

Mr McCready alleged gifts in her name were a “laundering exercise” to avoid Mr Brown having to declare them on the register of interests. …

Mr McCready said he would prepare two charging documents against Ms Inglis anyway.

“There’s no doubt that there’s culpability. It sends a message to all of these spouses,” Mr McCready said.

“By accepting these freebies, Ms Inglis became a party to her husband’s alleged offending and in the interest of justice she ought to be made accountable.”

Oh for God’s sake, leave the poor woman alone. Hasn’t she suffered enough. Going after family like this is deplorable, unless they have done something wrong and there is no evidence at all she has.

Tags: , , ,

50 Responses to “McCready vs Browns”

  1. redqueen (567 comments) says:

    Isn’t this the point about crusaders? They have a religious fervour? Not saying I agree or disagree, but it hardly seems surprising.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    This confirms my long held suspicion that Graeme McReady is a complete dropkick.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. david (2,557 comments) says:

    If Shan Inglis got her hands dirty supporting corrupt acts by Len Brown she should be challenged. Remember this is not about the shame of having your husband rooting around (after all she was the “other woman” in Brown’s first marriage) but simply about breaking the law. All power to Mcready for not allowing the sooky faux sympathy vote to divert his attention from the issue at hand.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    If Len Brown is guilty of bribery, then a charge against a person who arranged the bribes would be entirely appropriate. The reason this charge is inappropriate is that there appears to be absolutely no evidence that Len Brow has accepted a bribe.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    What’s a bribe Graeme?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Keeping Stock (10,342 comments) says:

    I’ve also blogged about this, and I am in accord with DPF. By all means let McCready have a go at publicly-elected officials like Banks, Mallard and Brown (and hasn’t he promised to prosecute Cunliffe?), but leave the families out of it. McCready has crossed the line as far as I’m concerned.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I think the “poor woman” has put her hand up to protect Lenny. Whether she’s prosecutable? I don’t think so, but its strange all of a sudden she’s booking rooms for him.

    Piss off he has staff .

    Len hasn’t accepted a bribe- hes a weak lying hollow man who has treated the constituency with contempt, ( they all do he’s just so bloody overt) and because of this he has shown he is too weak to lead Auckland. I’m still spewing about the credit card 40 months ago. That’s what he should have been rolled for.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    I think Graeme is right. Moreover, I doubt McCready can ever elicit such evidence, or even find it (because I doubt it exists).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    There is a problem with corruption in New Zealand.

    There is also a complacency or lack of political will to deal with it.

    We seem to get a knee jerk legislative response from parliament to every social ill in the country and yet when it comes to corruption in high places…….

    why am I not surprised?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    There is a problem with corruption in New Zealand.

    Really? All the surveys and reports say otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    I agree with Prof Geddis.

    The chances that Mr McCready will succeed in sheeting home the charges that he laid are slim.

    He needs evidence, and not inference, from real live witnesses. You can have all the law in the world, but without evidence you cannot get very far.

    Even if Mr McCready were to compel witnesses the chances of they saying what he would like them to say are remote.

    Laying a charge against Ms Inglis is as others have said silly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pete George (23,602 comments) says:

    but its strange all of a sudden she’s booking rooms for him.

    Piss off he has staff .

    But there is still a bit of a puzzle over this – Brown says that Inglis booked 98% of the rooms – with the help of his staff). It hasn’t been revealed who paid for the rooms and if it was the council whether it was reimbursed before this blew up. Brown seems to have been deliberately vague and I haven’t seen any media examination of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    NK thinks surveys show there’s no political corruption in New Zealnd…..

    off the top of my head……

    Alamien korpu and furniture
    Some big fellas ‘ undies
    a speaker and taxi chits
    credit cards for porn
    some Indians recently done for ballot stuffing
    Phillip Field

    Is Banksie on charges at the minute? (not sayin’ he’s guilty but he is facing court)

    Now we have this Mayor fella….

    Anyone else want to make a cntribution to the list?

    Immigration “consultancy” nudge nudge wink wink.

    Tip of the ice berg and all that.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    NK thinks surveys show there’s no political corruption in New Zealnd…..

    No, I didn’t say that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    I think Len Brown is arrogant and has a larger than most, sense of entitlement. I think he should resign. Len Brown remaining as mayor hurts Auckland. He can’t lead like he is supposed to. He is living off the ratepayer tit and only cares about him and not Aucklanders.

    That said.

    McCready should leave Shan Inglis alone. Partners go on business trips, its not a requirement that they know the company’s policies around gifting or the FBT rules.

    If going for LB rocks McCready’s boat then whatever, but leave his wife out of it. McCready knows an action against SI won’t suggest. If he doesn’t, he’s arrogant.

    Again I still think Len Brown should resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    MP’s housing allowances.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    “I think Graeme is right. Moreover, I doubt McCready can ever elicit such evidence, or even find it (because I doubt it exists).”

    McCready is not in the habit of laying Informations that are not backed up with solid evidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Unfortunately I think McCready’s attempt will be more of a hindrance than do any good. There are those that are sitting on the fence regarding Brown. Some important people with a bit of an arrogant attitude – to have someone like McCready target Brown without evidence (despite the commonsense factor which doesn’t matter an iota as evidence) might make them swing over to supporting Brown – and therefore achieve the opposite effect and ensure Brown ‘reigns’ a little longer (until he stuffs up again)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. G152 (351 comments) says:

    There is plenty of evidence.
    Phone logs.
    Hotel bookings
    About time to award the DCM

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    McCready and Penny Bright are working together. Groan.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. burt (8,275 comments) says:

    Right – so in the court of public perception… John Key accepts an invite to a party and that’s corruption and accepting “incentives” but Len Brown accepts free rooms over and over again and he’s innocent…. You got to love NZ politics and the partisan BS that is it’s core.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    A commentator on my Pundit post pointed to another especially good reason why this isn’t going anywhere – section 106 of the Crimes Act:

    Restrictions on prosecution

    (1) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against any of the provisions of sections 100, 101, 104, 105, 105A, 105B, 105C, and 105D without the leave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he or she thinks fit.

    Chances of this leave being given is approximately zero (because it would mean the AG accusing the Government’s partner in the Auckland Convention Centre of bribing the Mayor of Auckland).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    We have lobbyists with access to Parliament and politicians not available to anyone else….that’s basic corruption 101 right there. Corporatism writ large. Par for the course in a State regulated system….impossible in a Free market one.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. David Farrar (1,899 comments) says:

    Thanks AG. Wonder if McCready realised that? I suspect the AG might delegate the decision to the SG due to the political sensitivity, but I’d say the outcome is the same.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    I suspect the AG might delegate the decision to the SG due to the political sensitivity, but I’d say the outcome is the same.

    Definitely would (I was being tongue in cheek about the AG). That’s what happened with Phillip Field. But given there is zero real evidence of bribery (as opposed to foolish failure to avoid a perceived conflict of interest), there’s no way the SG would give leave (even if a District Court Judge accepts the papers for filing).

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Wayne Mapp (67 comments) says:

    Kowtow,

    If that list is your evidence of wide scale corruption, no wonder we regularly top the list as the least corrupt nation on earth.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. NK (1,244 comments) says:

    Exactly, Wayne. Exactly.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Having just looked at it S106 is clear.
    No prosecution without leave.
    Under the new charging regime I am picking a judge would require to sight evidence or confirmation of leave given by the AG as a precondition to acceptance of the filing.
    Anyway however it works in the absence of leave things will grind to a sudden halt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Chuck Bird (4,897 comments) says:

    “If that list is your evidence of wide scale corruption, no wonder we regularly top the list as the least corrupt nation on earth.”

    Wayne, I agree that the fact that NZ has very low corruption is something to be proud of. However, we should not confuse low corruption with no corruption.

    I doubt if there even has been a case of a judge taking a cash bribe but I am sure the are cases with judges giving favourable treatment to someone they know.

    As a juror I am expected to if I know either party. A judge has has no such requirement. I believe a judge should have the same requirement.

    I say this because of a civil case I have been involved in with a former deadbeat lawyer. I cannot say the judge was bias because he knew the other party but I think that may well have been the case. If a judge had the same requirement it would benefit not only me but the whole justice system.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Don’t care what happens, so long as Lecher gets dumped from his position as mayor. If he ends up in the can I am sure he will make a good gang member’s bitch, having both the morals and scruples to perform the task.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Where were all the ‘Pundits’ that predicted John Banks would ever be committed to trial for electoral fraud, and the Solicitor-General would take over the prosecution?

    That has arguably set QUITE a precedent.

    Yes – I am aware of s.106 of the Crimes Act 1961.

    (On that point – I find it rather fascinating that PM John Key has been somewhat deafening in his silence regarding the increasing chorus of those calling for the resignation of Mayor John Banks?

    Nothing to do with his Sky City connections – perchance? )

    How many of you are aware that the underpinning NZ Serious Fraud Office Act 1990, does not mention ANYWHERE the words ‘bribery of corruption’?

    Don’t believe a word I say – CHECK FOR YOURSELVES!

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1990/0051/latest/DLM210990.html

    Are you aware of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Police and NZ SFO regarding the referral of bribery and corruption complaints? (Schedule 6)

    http://www.sfo.govt.nz/f232,17638/MOU_NZ_Police_and_SFO.pdf

    (It would appear that the NZ SFO are not – otherwise why was the bribery and corruption complaint by myself and Lisa Prager treated as a ‘serious and complex fraud’ complaint?

    For correspondence with the NZ SFO – check out http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. OneTrack (3,117 comments) says:

    penny – What, Len has already gone and John Banks is now mayor again? Wow, things move fast in the big city.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Seen this?

    Field v R – Courts of New Zealand
    http://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/field-v-r-1/at_download/fileDecision‎
    FIELD v R SC 3/2011 [27 October 2011]. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND. SC 3/2011. [2011] NZSC 129. TAITO PHILLIP HANS FIELD v.

    Conclusion

    [66] While we are satisfied that the acceptance of gifts which are de minimis (as just explained) should not be considered corrupt under s 103(1), the acceptance of other benefits in connection with official actions is rightly regarded as corrupt irrespective of whether there was an antecedent promise or bargain. We do not accept that this approach means that the word ―corruptly‖ in s 103(1) is deprived of effect. In part it captures the requirement for a defendant to have acted knowingly. In the present case, this requirement required the Crown to establish that the appellant knew that the services he received were provided in connection with the immigration assistance he gave, meaning that he knowingly engaged in conduct which the legislature regards as corrupt. As well, it is the presence in s 103(1) (and like provisions) of the word ―corruptly‖ which permits the de minimis exception to liability which we accept exists.

    [67] Because the services in this case – worth around $50,000 – were not de minimis, we are satisfied that the directions given by Rodney Hansen J to the jury were correct. They are consistent with the approach taken by Lord Cranworth and Willes J in Cooper v Slade and the subsequent leading authorities. As well – and most importantly – they are also consistent with the language of s 103, the particular statutory context in which it appears and the legislative history.

    Disposition

    [68] For those reasons the appeal should be dismissed.

    Solicitors:

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

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Seen this?

    Minutes of the Auckland Council Governing Body on 27 June 2013:

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/governingbody/governingbodymin20130627.pdf

    19 New Zealand International Convention Centre

    Cr Richard Northey declared an interest in this Item as he is a member of the Problem Gambling Foundation. He noted that he would be speaking and voting on this item.

    Recommendations

    That the Governing Body:

    a) note that Auckland Council officers will engage with SkyCity on the development of the New Zealand International Convention Centre to help ensure the facility meets Auckland Council’s design aspirations for the site and surrounding area.

    b) note that the resource consent application for the New Zealand International Convention Centre will follow a set statutory process as outlined in the Resource Management Act.

    c) note that SkyCity will trial further measures, including Facial Recognition Technology, to address problem gambling in addition to those agreed with government, for its Auckland casino operation.

    d) note that Auckland Council’s processing of the New Zealand International Convention Centre resource consent application is unable to take into consideration any objections to SkyCity’s Auckland casino operations. Governing Body

    Amendment proposed by Cr Cathy Casey by way of substitution for a) to d):

    Resolution number GB/2013/67

    MOVED by Cr C Casey, seconded Cr M Lee:

    That the Governing Body:

    a) does not support the Government’s proposal for SkyCity to develop a convention centre in return for changes in our gambling legislation to increase gambling at the SkyCity Casino.

    A division was called for, voting on which was as follows:

    For:
    Councillors: Dr Cathy Casey
    Sandra Coney
    Alf Filipaina
    Michael Goudie
    Ann Hartley
    Penny Hulse
    Mike Lee
    Richard Northey
    Wayne Walker
    George Wood

    Against:
    Mayor Len Brown
    Councillors: Cameron Brewer
    Des Morrison
    Calum Penrose
    Dick Quax
    Sharon Stewart
    Sir John Walker

    Cr Hon Chris Fletcher abstained from voting.

    The amendment was declared CARRIED by 10 votes to 7.
    CARRIED

    Cr J Walker exited the meeting at 1.58pm.

    Secretarial note: Following debate and acting upon advice from the mover of the amendment, the Mayor ruled that the amendment should be considered in addition to recommendations a) – d), not in substitution thereof.

    Secretarial note: Cr Richard Northey proposed an amendment to recommendation c) and Cr Cathy Casey proposed an additional recommendation e), both of which were incorporated in the motion.

    Cr Hartley exited the meeting at 2.20pm.
    Cr Fletcher exited the meeting at 2.38pm.

    Resolution number GB/2013/68

    MOVED by Mayor LCM Brown, seconded Cr DM Morrison:

    That the Governing Body:

    b) note that Auckland Council officers will engage with SkyCity on the development of the New Zealand International Convention Centre to help ensure the facility meets Auckland Council’s design aspirations for the site and surrounding area.

    c) note that the resource consent application for the New Zealand International Convention Centre will follow a set statutory process as outlined in the Resource Management Act. Governing Body

    d) note that SkyCity will trial further measures, including Facial Recognition Technology, to address problem gambling in addition to those agreed with government for its Auckland casino operation and also urge investigation of a measure where a pre-commitment to a maximum time to be spent and losses incurred while gambling be made mandatory for all customers gambling at the casino.

    e) note that Auckland Council’s processing of the New Zealand International Convention Centre resource consent application is unable to take into consideration any objections to SkyCity’s Auckland casino operations.

    f) request that the Government release the Social Impact Assessment report, that electronic gaming tables be treated as electronic gambling machines, and that there be an independent audit of SkyCity’s statistics and harm minimisation proposals.

    CARRIED

    Secretarial note: Pursuant to Standing Order 3.15.5, Cr Calum Penrose requested that his dissenting vote against the motion be recorded and Crs Cameron Brewer and Sharon Stewart requested that their dissenting votes against clauses d) and f) be recorded.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    You may note there was no mention of the increased risk of money laundering arising from the NZ International Convention Centre (then – Bill)?

    That’s another RELATED story ……………….

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. big bruv (13,934 comments) says:

    Paid your rate yet Penny?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    What do you think Big Bruv?

    HINT: Try using your brain ……………..

    (Meant of course in a caring way :)

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayory.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Seen this?

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/governingbody/codeofconducte
    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

    10.9. Financial Interest – Decision-making

    Elected members must not participate in any Council discussion or vote on any matter in which they have a financial interest. If they are in doubt as to whether they have a financial conflict of interest, prior to the meeting they should refer to the Local Authorities (Members Interest) Act, the Guidelines of the OAG and/or seek advice from the Chief Executive or the OAG.

    Elected members also need to be aware that the above requirement will normally apply in the case of interest through a spouse or partner and in some cases to interest through a company (refer OAG Guidelines).

    Members must always avoid accepting any gifts (including hospitality, entertainment) from parties to any regulatory process that the Council will be hearing and/or making decisions

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Remember the above-mentioned:

    b) note that Auckland Council officers will engage with SkyCity on the development of the New Zealand International Convention Centre to help ensure the facility meets Auckland Council’s design aspirations for the site and surrounding area.

    c) note that the resource consent application for the New Zealand International Convention Centre will follow a set statutory process as outlined in the Resource Management Act. Governing Body

    Minutes of the Auckland Council Governing Body on 27 June 2013:

    http://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/SiteCollectionDocuments/aboutcouncil/governingbody/governingbodymin20130627.pdf

    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    Still convinced that this private prosecution against Mayor Len Brown is unlikely to ‘go anywhere’?

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    Wayne old bean,

    I said that was the tip of the ice berg……

    and coincidently on the news tonight another cop busted for corruption.

    There’s been a few recently and prison guards smuggling …….

    As I said, tip of the ice berg.

    And judging by your reaction , I repeat complacency or is it alack of political will,which I find strange given how activist parliament has been in other areas.

    By the way I didn’t say “widespread” ,you did,I said we have a problem.And obviously we do.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    There’s more …………

    Ever heard of the Secret Commissions Act 1910?

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1910/0040/latest/whole.html#DLM177657

    Check out s. 4

    4 Acceptance of such gifts by agent an offence

    (1) Every agent is guilty of an offence who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, or solicits from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gift or other consideration as an inducement or reward for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act in relation to the principal’s affairs or business (whether such act is within the scope of the agent’s authority or the course of his employment as agent or not), or for showing or having shown favour or disfavour to any person in relation to the principal’s affairs or business.

    (2) Every agent who diverts, obstructs, or interferes with the proper course of the affairs or business of his principal, or fails to use due diligence in the prosecution of such affairs or business, with intent to obtain for himself or for any other person any gift or other consideration from any person interested in such affairs or business, shall be deemed to have corruptly solicited a consideration within the meaning of this section.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    Who’s an ‘agent’?
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    16 Persons deemed to be agents within the meaning of this Act

    (1)For the purposes of this Act—

    (a)every officer of a corporation and every member of a governing body of a corporation shall be deemed to be an agent of the corporation:

    (b)every officer or member of any local authority, Board, Council, committee, or other body of persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, charged by statute with any public functions shall be deemed to be an agent of that local authority, Board, Council, committee, or other body:

    (c)every person in the service of the Crown, or acting for or on behalf of the Crown, or holding any office in the public service, shall be deemed to be an agent of the Crown:

    (d)every partner in a firm shall be deemed to be an agent of the firm:

    (e)an executor, administrator, or trustee shall be deemed to be an agent of the beneficiaries under the will, intestacy, or trust:

    (f)the committee of the estate of a person of unsound mind shall be deemed to be the agent of that person:

    (g)an arbitrator, umpire, or valuer shall be deemed to be an agent of every party to the arbitration or valuation:

    (h)a liquidator of a company shall be deemed to be an agent of the company.

    (2)If by virtue of the provisions of this Act any agent is deemed to be the agent of 2 or more principals in respect of the same matter, this Act shall apply to each of those principals in the same manner as if he was the sole principal.

    (3)Nothing in this section shall be so construed as to restrict in any manner the meaning of the terms agent or principal as used in this Act.
    ______________________________________________________________________________________________

    What are the penalties?
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    13 Penalty on conviction
    Any person convicted of an offence against this Act is liable, if a corporation, to a fine not exceeding $2,000; and if any other person, to imprisonment for any period not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
    Section 13: replaced, on 1 July 2013, by section 413 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (2011 No 81).
    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    What would happen to Mayor Len Brown if convicted?

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2002/0084/latest/DLM175643.html

    Schedule 7

    Local authorities and community boards, and their members
    ss 5(1), 41(1), 42(1), 48, 53(1), 54, 59(2)

    Part 1

    Provisions relating to local authorities and their members

    Vacation of office by members

    1Disqualification of members

    (1)A person’s office as member of a local authority is vacated if the person, while holding office as a member of the local authority,—

    (a)ceases to be an elector or becomes disqualified for registration as an elector under the Electoral Act 1993; or

    (b)is convicted of an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment of 2 years or more.

    (2)If subclause (1)(b) applies,—

    (a)the disqualification does not take effect—

    (i)until the expiration of the time for appealing against the conviction or decision; or

    (ii)if there is an appeal against the conviction or decision, until the appeal is determined; and

    (b)the person is deemed to have been granted leave of absence until the expiration of that time, and is not capable of acting as a member during that time.

    (3)A person may not do an act as a member while disqualified under subclause (1) or while on leave of absence under subclause (2).

    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. MH (762 comments) says:

    all the above is clearly proscribed in the code of conduct for Auckland Council officers.
    all the judge will say is Brown acted unwisely…..but his credit card misuse phone calls – he was warned before in Manukau City and to continue his abuse of the protocols must lead somewhere but whether they justify re-assignations,I can’t possibly say. as I’ve said before Quax and Walker need to run Brown out of town.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Paul Marsden (998 comments) says:

    “I doubt if there even has been a case of a judge taking a cash bribe but I am sure the are cases with judges giving favourable treatment to someone they know”

    Absolutely. I have first hand knowledge of a High Court judge that was so biased against a defendant (in an injunction proceeding), he became personally involved and telephoned the plaintiffs counsel (amongst other matters) , to see if his orders against the defendant where being complied with. Later, the Appeal Court found the judge to have erred in applying even basic principles of law, in regards to his other rulings in the matter. The Appeal Court never did learn about the Judge’s personal involvement. None of the lawyers were prepared to disclose the matter

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. kowtow (8,524 comments) says:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/latest-edition/594364/Appeal-Court-judge-faces-a-question-of-judgement

    We can’t afford to be complacent.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. RF (1,407 comments) says:

    Don’t forget Judges are human and have to drop their pants like you and I to attend their bodily functions. Something you should remember when they sit in judgement wearing their finery and looking down on you. A few have been locked up over the years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Yes – the Attorney-General does have to grant leave before prosecution came proceed under s.105(1) of the NZ Crimes Act 1961 or the Secret Commissions Act 1910 – but – in my considered opinion, any decision NOT to grant leave could potentially be rather politically fraught, particularly given the Deputy Auditor-General’s Inquiry:

    “….found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry provided and the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.”

    Particularly when the ‘range of deficiencies’ extends to the Prime Minister of New Zealand – John Key and Minister of Economic Development Steven Joyce?

    (It’s a FASCINATING read – I recommend it :)

    http://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/skycity

    Deputy Auditor-General’s overview

    Inquiry into the Government’s decision to negotiate with SkyCity Entertainment Group Limited for an international convention centre.

    In June 2012, I announced that this Office would carry out an inquiry into the process that the Ministry of Economic Development (the Ministry) followed leading up to the Government’s decision to negotiate with SKYCITY Entertainment Group Limited (SkyCity) about developing an international convention centre in Auckland.1

    The inquiry has considered both the adequacy of the process followed and whether anything substantively wrong has taken place. The main question underlying this inquiry was whether the Government’s decision to negotiate with SkyCity had been influenced by inappropriate considerations, such as connections between political and business leaders.

    We have seen no evidence to suggest that the final decision to negotiate with SkyCity was influenced by any inappropriate considerations.

    However, we found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry provided and the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.

    ………………………………..

    Phillippa Smith
    Deputy Controller and Auditor-General

    18 February 2013

    1: The Auditor-General has a small shareholding in SkyCity so she has not been involved in this inquiry.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    Note that footnote?

    1: The Auditor-General has a small shareholding in SkyCity so she has not been involved in this inquiry.

    Given that it was the same Auditor-General Lyn Provost who declined my request to conduct an inquiry into the failure of OFCANZ (Organised and Financial Crime Agency of NZ) to carry out ‘due diligence’ on the increased risk of money laundering arising from the NZ International Convention Centre Act 2013 – I would be deeply concerned if she were still had a ‘small shareholding in SkyCity’ at the time she made that decision?

    So – despite further emails and phone calls to her EA – I have yet to even receive an acknowledgment of receipt of my correspondence.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    14 January 2014

    Lyn Provost
    Auditor-General
    New Zealand

    ‘Open Letter’

    Dear Lyn,

    Over the Christmas break, I took the opportunity to study the:

    “Inquiry into the Government’s decision to negotiate with Sky city Entertainment Group Ltd for an international convention centre”

    (February 2013 )

    I note that this inquiry was actually carried out by the Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith.

    In the Deputy Auditor-General’s overview, (Pg 3) she states:

    “In June 2012, I announced that this Office would carry out an inquiry into the process that the Ministry of Economic Development (the Ministry) followed leading up to the Government’s decision to negotiate with SKYCITY Entertainment Group Ltd (Sky City) about developing an international convention centre in Auckland. 1

    ………………….

    1 The Auditor-General has a small shareholding in Sky City so she has not been involved in this inquiry. ”

    ______________________________________________________

    http://www.oag.govt.nz/2013/skycity/2013/skycity/docs/inquiry-into-the-government2019s-decision-to-negotiate-with-skycity-entertainment-group-limited-for-an-international-convention-centre

    Can you please confirm whether or not you still have ‘a small shareholding in Sky City’?

    YES or NO?

    If NO, can you please confirm the date when you ceased to be a shareholder in Sky City?

    Can you please acknowledge receipt of this correspondence at your earliest convenience?

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright

    …..

    _________________________________________________________________________________________________

    (A copy of the above-mentioned request to the Auditor-General dated 12 October 2013, can be found on http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz – just scroll down ….. )

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. publicwatchdog (2,624 comments) says:

    Want to read ‘whistle-blower’ reports /articles that expose the lack of transparency and accountability in the New Zealand ‘Justice’ system?

    http://www.newzealandjustice.com.

    http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Johnboy (16,704 comments) says:

    First again! I feel like a rapist. But I didn’t get much satisfaction! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    See the Herald no longer allow comments on Lecher Len, when he makes news . . . have they had orders from their political masters!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Nostalgia-NZ (5,221 comments) says:

    On the face of it, Lenny will be off this hook.

    Don’t know how he would survive an inquiry under Section 93 (1) taken by 10 ratepayers, applying out of time for the District Court to review if misleading the electorate at the time of the election as to character was an ‘irregularity.’ There is a 21 day limit which indicates the Law Makers recognize that there can be ‘irregularities’ during the election process, if any such ‘irregularity’ didn’t come to the notice of the ratepayers during the 21 day period it’s difficult to accept that an official was elected fraudulently (by misrepresenting his character) in such a way that otherwise, had he been truthful, he or she may not have won the vote. That’s a question important to Auckland rate payers and voters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    When is this left-wing lecher going to realise he must get to eff out? It shows the lengths these socialist bludgers will go to when their trough is threatened with removal. He was elected by non-ratepayers, so it is about time the Act was changed and principal ratepayers only, had the right to vote in local body elections, not the riff raff that Lecher Len attracts and supports.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. jackinabox (776 comments) says:

    Well I’ll be fucked

    “When is this left-wing lecher going to realise he must get to eff out? It shows the lengths these socialist bludgers will go to when their trough is threatened with removal.”

    Who does that sound like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote