Waiting v resigning

June 6th, 2014 at 8:59 am by David Farrar

The Judge in the Banks case has not yet entered a conviction as he could discharge without conviction at the sentencing on 1 August. This means that Banks would not lose his seat. There is a reasonable chance the Judge could grant this, as the offence he has been found guilty of was not committed while Banks was an MP.

However that would not change the fact that John Banks has been found guilty, and if he continues as an MP until 1 August (or beyond), the Opposition will try to paint the Government as being held up by an MP found guilty of an (local body) electoral offence.

The reality is that the Government doesn’t need the vote of John Banks. With him they are 64-57 on confidence and supply and without him they are 63-57. Banks going would have some potential political impact as it would mean that any laws voted on in the next two sessions would need the support of the Maori Party. However I’m not aware that there are any likely votes on laws that they opposed.

I don’t think the Judge has actually helped the Government by delaying the decision on entering a conviction. Nowt that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government. I’m just saying I think it would have been cleaner to make the decision as the same time as the guilty verdict.

Constitutionally there is no question that Banks is entitled to remain an MP until such time as he is convicted, and he has not yet been convicted – only found guilty. Many people get discharged without conviction.

However politically I think the honourable thing to do would be to accept that a guilty verdict has been rendered, and to resign from the House of Representatives before sentencing and the decision on a discharge. Not doing so would be a significant distraction for the Government, which should be talking about the economy, better schools, more operations, welfare reform etc, rather than having to be defensive on an MP remaining in Parliament after he has been found guilty of an offence which would result in a loss of his seat once if a conviction is entered.

This is a decision purely for John Banks, not the Government. He has every constitutional right to stay on until a conviction is entered, if it is. But I think John Banks came into politics with very honourable motives, and I think resigning would be in the same spirit.

Tags:

102 Responses to “Waiting v resigning”

  1. gazzmaniac (2,317 comments) says:

    While the justice system is at it, can they please prosecute Mike Williams and Winston Peters for repeatedly failing to return the Parliamentary Services money that they illegally used for campaigning in 2008?

    EDIT – and the media could give the same coverage to Matt McCa-Ca-Ca-Carten for not paying his employees taxes.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. queenstfarmer (743 comments) says:

    Not often I agree with Peters, but on this occassion he is spot on:

    NZ First Leader Winston Peters said Banks should do the “decent thing” and vacate his seat in Parliament.

    “He may have options on this matter still, but whatever those options are, he should come to those options and choose them with clean hands, as it were,” Peters said.

    “Staying in Parliament in circumstances where others would not be able to, and have not been able to in the past, surely can’t be the right option.”

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Keeping Stock (10,097 comments) says:

    This is a decision purely for John Banks, not the Government.

    Agree completely DPF. John Key may have superpowers, but the one thing that he cannot do is require an MP from another party to resign from Parliament. Those who are demanding that Key make Banks resign are doing so in ignorance.

    Like you, I would like to see Banks resign of his own volition, and indeed blogged that sentiment yesterday. Resigning might well be the first step for John Banks in rebuilding his damaged reputation.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. kowtow (7,599 comments) says:

    He should do the right thing and resign.

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    I do not think there is much prospect of Banks resigning. He will be pushing for a discharge without conviction, however unlikely that result must be. In any case, there is no indication that Banks feels he has done anything wrong, so in his head why should he resign?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. b1gdaddynz (279 comments) says:

    He should resign because it is a) the right thing to do, b) the politically correct thing to do in terms of avoiding distractions for his friends in National in the lead up to the election and c) the best thing for his party as remaining on in this situation in the lead up to the election cannot help but be damaging!

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    Field was charged three months after Key’s statement.

    “This is a Prime Minister who was prepared to cynically cling to power by continuing to exercise Mr Field’s vote, no matter what.

    http://johnkey.co.nz/archives/17-Field-defiant,-Clark-exposed-as-weak.html

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. SGA (808 comments) says:

    @DPF

    I don’t think the Judge has actually helped the Government by delaying the decision on entering a conviction. Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government. I’m just saying I think it would have been cleaner to make the decision as the same time as the guilty verdict.

    Assuming “Now” is a typo for “Not” -
    Has the Judge done what a judge would normally do? If so, I’m not sure why the “I’m just saying…” sentence is relevant or necessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. fernglas (100 comments) says:

    I didn’t see the words “moral” or “ethical” mentioned anywhere in this article. What is politically right and what is morally right do not always coincide. In this case, happily they do. The judge would not have dealt with the question of discharge without conviction at the same time as finding guilt. That is for the sentencing phase. But even if Banks is discharged without conviction, that doesn’t alter the fact that he has been found guilty. The discharge is a reflection of the disproportionate effect of entering a conviction, not whether he is guilty. Conviction is indeed the legal trigger for disqualification as an MP. Morally, a finding of guilt should be the trigger for a resignation. Banks may be a flawed man, but those who know him seem to see him as a moral one. The moral path is a clear one.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ed Snack (1,734 comments) says:

    Agree, he should resign. The party should require his resignation as a matter of principle. But it must be especially galling for Banks to have that most corrupt of MPs, Winston, twit him about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. ROJ (84 comments) says:

    Politically hounourable to resign?

    MORALLY!

    And from that position, it will help clear the air in the next few weeks / months for his own party to present themselves in Epsom and the wider electorate.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. GPT1 (2,088 comments) says:

    Agreed. As an aside it would be near unheard of to sentence on the day. Submissions need to be prepared in writing and made in person. Further the Judge has directed a pre sentence report including annexures for electronically monitored sentences. They take time to prepare.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. s.russell (1,563 comments) says:

    The Herald has an excellent opinion piece on Banks by John Armstrong. Surprisingly sympathetic.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11268287

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. BeaB (2,057 comments) says:

    I think he should do what he wants to do and not be pushed into anything. He is a man who has served his country well and should be left in peace. I hate that spectacle of people being hounded down the street by cameramen and reporters shrieking questions.
    I am also amazed at the judge saying who he believed by watching the witnesses closely. Shouldn’t he have listened to what they were saying and determined whether there were gaps or flaws in their evidence, not peerig at them for some mystical signs of lying.
    In the end Banks may have broken the rules but it is a minor infraction that has cost us an enormous amount of court time and money. For what end?
    And we know another judge might have come to a completely different conclusion.
    I just hope the gloaters and punishers enjoy the closer scrutiny they will face when fundraising and accounting for the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. freethinker (680 comments) says:

    I am sure (Tui advert) that the Police were right not to prosecute, the retired accountant wrong to prosecute and Crown law wrong to take it over and of course its entirely coincidental the judge delayed sentence until after Parliament rises so arguments for extreme clemency can be dispensed – no conviction. The reality is Banks has been almost as devious and deceitful as WP and in view of his experience, past positions of authority and as an example to others a year in jail plus a $10,000 fine would demonstrate the required level of accountability.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (4,904 comments) says:

    The Judge has given an indication of a sentence that might be given by seeking a report of the suitability of ‘home detention.’ So I don’t agree that the Judge could have done something ‘cleaner.’ JK may not be able to sack Banks but he could certainly say that Banks doesn’t have his confidence. As DPF has pointed out, along with at least one other political commentator, the longer Banks remains the more argument will be made about his presence and being ‘looked after.’ I expect he may well resign having absorbed that he is in Parliament because of Key giving him the nod in Epsom and that his presence is now a distraction. He only ever had an endorsement by proxy as MMP allows, it wasn’t an ‘allowance’ that he was accepted subject to, or despite, that he had committed electoral fraud.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. tvb (4,200 comments) says:

    A resignation is quite a separate matter from the discharge without conviction application. The resignation is more a political decision. it might be best if Banks does this and he seems to have left the door open for that course of action. It would be wise if the Government does a stock take on what legislation Bank’s vote would be essential if anything. I assume the budget legislation is safe under the confidence and supply agreement with the Maori Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (13,341 comments) says:

    John Banks is morally bankrupt. He got what he deserved for receiving money from a gangster like KDC.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Agree with you mostly on this one DPF. However Key has the ability to minimise the harm of a Banks decision to stay by ensuring the only legislation to pass between now and the election has the backing of the MP so that it is not reliant on Banks. This may cause issue with the Sky City legislation which could be embarresing but far less than being seen as a hypocrit after all the statements he made about Field.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. James Stephenson (2,018 comments) says:

    @Manolo. Doesn’t it grind your gears to be talking about Banks and “morals” considering who the winner was in the relevant election? If only JB had used a trust structure to launder his donation as Len did, he wouldn’t be in this situation.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. greenjacket (416 comments) says:

    A question someone may be able to answer.
    That John Banks did not disclose a large donation (and was found guilty for) only came about because Kim Dotcom paid John Banks money for Banks’ support, and when Dotcom asked for that support and Banks didn’t give it, Dotcom believed he had been stiffed and wanted revenge.
    .
    So why isn’t Kim Dotcom facing charges for corruption or bribery of a public official under the Crimes Act?

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pete George (22,784 comments) says:

    However Key has the ability to minimise the harm of a Banks decision to stay by ensuring the only legislation to pass between now and the election has the backing of the MP so that it is not reliant on Banks.

    Yes. It’s unlikely that National would try to pass contentious legislation leading into an election anyway, so this may not change much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nostalgia-NZ (4,904 comments) says:

    Banks solicited the money, wasn’t a public official and there is no evidence that Dotcom sought anything illegal from Banks, only that Banks ignored him, pretended he didn’t know him, said that he couldn’t ‘recall’ taking any money from him and so it goes on.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. tas (593 comments) says:

    Banks is a good guy. I suspect he’ll do whatever is best for NZ, whether that is staying in the house to give the govt a solid majority or resigning to stop the sideshow. It’s a sad end to his political career.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. RightNow (6,649 comments) says:

    I think it is important for Banks to do the principled thing now and resign, lest he become the example used by others to justify their own misdeeds.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. flipper (3,544 comments) says:

    greenjacket….

    As much as I would like to see the German prosecuted for something, I don’t think he would have a case to answer on the issue you raise. Think it thru!

    and on Banksie….

    Go to :
    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/from/decisions/judgments

    and scroll down to HC judgements, in particular R v John Archibald Banks. CRI 2012-085-009093 [2014] NZHC 1244

    It is worth a read

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross001 (115 comments) says:

    This is a Prime Minister who was prepared to cynically cling to power by continuing to exercise Mr Field’s vote, no matter what. She would have used any excuse to not act against him to maintain her slim one-vote majority. ~ John Key

    What a creep John Key is. He has the temerity to criticise Helen Clark, even though Field had not been charged at the time. John Banks has been convicted (in effect, of corruption) yet John Key is seemingly happy to stand by him. What a tosser.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 22 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nostalgia-NZ (4,904 comments) says:

    There wouldn’t be many that would raise the argument that the mp who asked the question in a restaurant of ‘don’t you know who I am?’ had done more wrong than what JB has been found guilty of doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. radvad (662 comments) says:

    Totally agree DPF. It is the right thing to do and would have the added bonus for Banks of salvaging something for his legacy.
    Dotcom may have destroyed his political career but, if Banks plays it right, it does not mean he has destroyed Banks the person. In fact he has the opportunity to come out stronger than ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. virtualmark (1,474 comments) says:

    Absolutely agree the principled action would be for John Banks to voluntarily resign from the House, immediately. That’s the proper moral action, the proper political action, and the best personal action for Banks to do to begin restoring his own reputation and dignity.

    Very disappointed with Jamie Whyte’s performance on Morning Report. Susie Ferguson is a fairly aggressive interviewer. Jamie Whyte came across as a dithering toff on the back foot the whole way through the interview. He may be book smart, but he doesn’t come across as street smart or politically smart. I’m not convinced appointing an academic as party leader was the right call.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. peterwn (3,150 comments) says:

    The judge had no option but to defer entering a conviction if John Banks’ lawyer indicated that he would argue for a discharge without conviction, as such an application would not be ‘hopeless’. The judge would give written reasons whether or not he grants it.

    I do not know whether any item in the remaining legislative programme is critically dependent on John Banks’ vote. If any is, then IMO it would be appropriate for National to let its priority slip. Hence John Banks’ vote would no longer be relevant. I suspect John Key would do this anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. RightNow (6,649 comments) says:

    flipper, you’re right, definitely worth a read. Particularly that “wilful blindness” has been determined in this case to prove guilt rather than innocence.
    All parties should beware of this, and the precedent now set by this case. Let’s hope NZ politics is better for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. anticorruptionnz (159 comments) says:

    It makes it very difficult for those in his electorate like me , to be able to go to their MP on issues of corruption .

    What representation have we got in the intervening time knowing that our MP is corrupt? If he was employed any where else in a position of authority he woudl be stood down .

    If the act party wishes to retain any credibility they would make their own move.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ROJ (84 comments) says:

    Yes Flipper, it was.

    I still consider it the moral position, that he should resign now, for the good of Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Ross12 (1,147 comments) says:

    anticorruptionnz

    I presume you take the same view on Len Brown and you find it difficult to approach the Akl Council about anything.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. SGA (808 comments) says:

    flipper at 10:03 am
    Agree with RightNow and ROJ. Worth reading.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Paulus (2,499 comments) says:

    Finally “Ambrose UTU” has prevailed help by the FatCrim crook.
    The media have tried since the last election to get both Key and Banks.
    They have not got Key yet, but they will try their damnest during the next three months.
    They will get Winston to help their cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Judith (7,553 comments) says:

    If Banks gets off with a discharge, and insists on running for Epsom, is it likely that Key will do the ‘cup of tea’ thingy again?

    Surely that would be pushing the boundaries considering the current criticisms over ‘coat tailing’?

    I guess there is always C Craig and the conservatives, but would all Epsom swallow that one?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Captain Pugwash (89 comments) says:

    Banks should resign now, I somehow doubt he will though.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (7,553 comments) says:

    @ RightNow (6,497 comments) says:
    June 6th, 2014 at 10:19 am

    Good point, and in my opinion it can only improve the situation – albeit make it difficult to manipulate the system for those that need to in order to win against the democratic process. I don’t see MMP, in its current form in NZ, actually being all that ‘democratic’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    NOS

    Dotcom wanted Banks to
    1. Help him with his residency.
    2. Help acquire a number of properties for which he required ministerial consent
    3. Organise the prison authorities to supply a more comfortable mattress while in jail and
    4. Help make the charges go away.

    Banks was called upon on a number of occasions and there is a clear suggestion of the expectation of quid pro quo. The money was accompanied by the expectation of services to be rendered. It is to Banks’ credit that he resisted not only the overtures but also the temptation to do a deal. How many people out there really believe that Dotcom would not have been open to the suggestion that there were ways of making this all go away?

    At the end of the day, however, Banks has been found to have lied in circumstances that involved a criminal offence and, unless there is an appeal, he will be forever tainted by that.

    Of course there are many who want him to go away forever. He, on the other hand, is adamant that at the time of signing he was not acting dishonestly. Although I have not read the decision, those parts of it that I have read and those summaries that have been available suggest that the Judge determined his state of mind at the time of signing by reference to his state of mind at an earlier point in time (notwithstanding the change in circumstances). This is what I surmised might happen on another thread. Whether it is a matter for appeal or not is up to Banks and his lawyer.

    If Banks decides that there are grounds for appeal, that he is convinced that, notwithstanding the present decision, he was innocent of the offence and that he is going to fight it, then it is entirely consistent with his dogged determination that he will fight his way through this to the bitter end.

    He did not back down with dotcom’s overtures. He has not backed down in relation to these proceedings and it is very unlikely that he will back down if he decides that there is a prospect of an appeal or some other means of avoiding a conviction (e.g. discharge). He would not be John Banks otherwise.

    There is no doubt that Banks has told lies during the course of this saga (remember his admission that he did in fact take a helicopter ride). Show me a politician who has not been less than economical with the truth.

    There have been times during his career that I have thought that he has been as mad as a meat axe and other times where he has shown a sensitivity and compassion singularly lacking in a vast majority of parliamentarians (many of whom are now condemning him).

    Banks will not be going away quietly. He is not in this for the money. He has enough. He is not in this to prop up the government. The government has enough. He is not after glory because clearly he is not getting any. He is doing this because he believes that he is right. He may be right. So far, a judge has determined that he was not. Banks is not necessarily going to let that go. That is the essence of John Banks – love him or hate him.

    While most of the opposition members regard this episode as a damnation of Banks, Act and the Government, it is far more widespread than that. It is a damnation of our political system and a lot of the people in it.

    Sure Banks has been found to be guilty of an offence. On the other hand, if you were looking for somebody that you could trust, and you had a choice between Banks and somebody who, although not having committed an offence, deliberately disguised the source of money from a donor – having previously condemned such activity as corrupt – and, when caught out, reversed the act and pretended that it never happened in the first place? The answer is probably neither. Neither should be in Parliament. Neither can throw stones at the other. Despite the warts, I have a grudging and at times conflicted respect for Banks. I have little but contempt for the hypocrisy of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Keeping Stock (10,097 comments) says:

    Do keep up Judith. Banks announced moths ago that he is retiring at the election, and Act has already selected its Epsom candidate who was door-knocking yesterday even as Justice Wylie was handing down his decision.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. flipper (3,544 comments) says:

    Nookin…..

    Though I obviously know J Banks better than you, and would reach a conclusion different from that of Wylie J, especially as to whether J Banks/Amanda are more credible han the German and the Phillippino, yours was a thoughtful contribution that contributes positively to debate.

    Apropos the full decision go to R v John Archibald Banks
    CRI 2012-085-009093 [2014] NZHC 1244 …. on the judicial decisions web site

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Nookin, Just a clarification that Banks did aproach the responsable minister on behalf of DotCom regarding the purhase of property. The relevent minister handled it correctly. The only time Banks didn’t answer DotCom’s call was when he was in jail and it was obvious that he couldn’t without hanging himself. Unfortunately he had got himself into a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation.

    The jusdges verdict in regards to his state of mind at an earlier stage goes dirctly to the fact that Banks specificaly organised the DotCom donations so that he could later claim they were anonomys. This indicates that he would be aware at the time of signing the decleration that those donations would be listed as such and in fact were not.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Judith (7,553 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock (9,936 comments) says:
    June 6th, 2014 at 10:51 am

    Sorry, been out of action for a couple of days. I read one of the earlier posts talking about him being a minister again and thought maybe he must have decided not to retire. I missed a couple of days of news.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Judith (7,553 comments) says:

    Approaching a minister to assist with a personal issue is nothing new. People do it all the time, and so they should be able to. The fact that someone has to ‘cross their palm with silver’ first, says more about the minister that requires it, than it does about the person that pays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    James
    You are right. He made the approach in relation to one property but there is no evidence of an exertion of influence — only that Banks was satisfied that the matter had been dealt with correctly. You are also right that one’s state of mind at one point in time might be evidence of the state of mind at another. The judge was satisfied that it was in this case but he has to tread a very careful line. In this case there was a lapse in time and a change in circumstances. It is a judgment call. That is what the judge is there for. It does not necessarily mean that the judge is right — or wrong for that matter.

    I am not making a call. I just don’t know. I am not going to let the conviction, if entered, define him nor would I necessarily let acquittal or discharge absolve him. He is flawed. So are we all. He has done some good things and some not so good things. He is not, however, a quitter.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    Approaching a minister to assist with a personal issue is nothing new.

    Mates look after mates…

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6833411/Banks-Dotcom-call-to-Williamson-made-as-a-citizen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Floyd60 (87 comments) says:

    They need his vote – have a look at the bills still to be debated before the election. Te Maori Party will not come to the party without a wish-list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    Judith: You have been “out of action” for more than a couple of days…Banks announced he wouldn’t be running in Epsom again months ago, and ACT has selected another candidate – David Seymour – to contest the seat..

    You no doubt have heard the one about it better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool…

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    I wonder how many of the lefties think Helen Clark should have been prosecuted for forgery. It was a lot more serious crime and there was a prima facie case.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    It’s actually worse than that Chuck…because of who she was, the file was sent to the Police Commissioner’s office…which also concluded there was a prima facie case of fraud. From there the file went to Crown Law for further action. Crown Law decided it was “not in the public interest” to prosecute…The ultimate head of Crown Law is of course the Attorney General…then Margaret Wilson I think. One may well say it was very convenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    I thought the head of the Crown Law Office was the Solicitor-General? Politicians have no role in prosecutions decisions. You know that David.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Pete George (22,784 comments) says:

    “It was a lot more serious crime ”

    It seemed trivial and petty to me. What were the possible consequences?

    I don’t think there was any intent to defraud anyone and there was no personal gain.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    It was worse still David. I went to the venders house who bought Clark’s forgery and offered him what he paid for it – $1,000. The signature was where a artist would sign it not on the back as the lefties try and say. The TV were there and I was on the six o’clock news holding it. He would not sell or counter offer. I tried to get ACT to put some money in to increase the offer but they take little notice of the foot soldiers who delivery pamphlets.

    I had discussions with a lawyer who was no fan of Clark who said he would do a private prosecution pro bone as long as I paid expenses like filing costs. Clark may have got word of this as the the painting was bought for $5,500 and burned.

    Don Brash was correct to refer to the Clark government as corrupt.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    “I don’t think there was any intent to defraud anyone and there was no personal gain.”

    You are saying being prime minister is not a personal gain?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    Some people will never get over the painting affair…

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. queenstfarmer (743 comments) says:

    “It was a lot more serious crime ”

    Oh not this forgery nonsense again. As Pete says, trivial and petty.

    Banks’s crime (which it now is) is much more serious. While I am a little surprised by the verdict – not because I don’t think Banks is blameworthy (of course he is), but because proving it beyond reasonable doubt is hard – the judge heard all the evidence and everyone needs to accept his decision, unless of course it gets overturned on appeal.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    How can the judge decide that Banks warrants anything other than a discharge without conviction? The offense committed was only a technicality since there were legal means to avoid naming donors, including one which was used by his opponent at the same mayoral election:

    1. Funnelling all donations anonymously through a trust.
    2. Refusing to name donors and returning the money some months after it had been donated.

    Convicting and handing out any type of sentence would essentially be penalising Banks for not setting up a trust, which would be a perverse outcome.

    Also consider:

    1. Mallard was convicted of assault and is still an MP.
    2. The last Labour government stole a bunch of taxpayer money, validated the theft via a retrospective law change, and none of them were removed from parliament.
    3. Peters was involved in all sorts of funding corruption and refuses to give back our $158k and is still an MP.
    4. Duynhoven didn’t break the law, but took voluntary actions that caused him to vacate his parliamentary seat, and Labour retrospectively changed the law to keep him in parliament.
    5. Cunliffe still hasn’t named his anonymous donors as required and he is still an MP.

    Because at the moment it looks like there are different rules for John Banks and David Garrett on the one hand. And Mallard, Clark, Peters, Duynhoven, and Cunliffe on the other.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    “I don’t think there was any intent to defraud anyone ….”
    Really? Isn’t this what happened:

    1.The painting was presented for auction at a fundraising event. As I understand it, the painting was painted by nobody in particular.
    2. A painting by nobody in particular is hardly likely to achieve frenzied bidding at auction.
    3. In order to make the painting more attractive, the organisers and the Prime Minister decided that they would pretend that the painting was in fact painted by the Prime Minister.
    4. By doing so, they would, deceptively, encourage potential purchasers to bid at a much higher level than they would have bid had they known that the painting was done by nobody in particular.

    This is called fraud. It is not arguable. It is like the old prostitute joke. Once the fact of prostitution has been established, all that remains is haggling over the price.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Chuck, do you get angry when celebrities sign photographs that someone else took? HC was stupid in the way that was handled but it is far from being worse than committing electoral fraud which by definition has the purpose of corrupting our electoral process.

    David the judge can definately choose to convict being that Banks chose to plead not guilty, was found to have lied in the opinion of the judge and is also not a first time offender. From what I understand he was convicted of a crime back in the early 90′s.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. itstricky (1,545 comments) says:

    This is a decision purely for John Banks, not the Government. He has every constitutional right to stay on until a conviction is entered, if it is. But I think John Banks came into politics with very honourable motives, and I think resigning would be in the same spirit.

    Honourable thing? Well of course it is. Distraction for Government? Well it’s a bit heavier than a “distraction”. Not by much, but it is.

    You’re being kind on him again David. Please attempt to put at least a little vehemence in.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Pete George (22,784 comments) says:

    I don’t think what Banks did is classed as ‘electoral fraud’. It was shoddy paperwork after a failed election. It’s hard to see what could be gained by it.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. ross411 (220 comments) says:

    mikenmild (9,799 comments) says:
    June 6th, 2014 at 12:36 pm
    Some people will never get over the painting affair…

    And I doubt the chip on your shoulder will ever be gotten over. Still, here you are parroting vague accusations against anything National. And parroting dismissals of anything substantiated and real about Labour. You’re so slanted to the left, I could see you coming down the street a mile away.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. itstricky (1,545 comments) says:

    I had discussions with a lawyer who was no fan of Clark who said he would do a private prosecution pro bone as long as I paid expenses like filing costs. Clark may have got word of this as the the painting was bought for $5,500 and burned

    Ewww I do love a good conspiracy! How do you how much it sold for and what happened to it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    What vague accusations against National? Any accusations I make tend to be pretty specific.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Nookin the painting, I believe, was only ever presented as being signed by the PM although I grant that it probably wasn’t made clear she didn’t paint it herself. Although you would be hard pressed to make a crime of this. There are charity auctions all the time where celebrity nik nacks are sold that a worth almost nothing before they are signed by one numpty or another. You don’t see them stating that said nik nack was not in fact produced by said Numpty at the sale.

    The painting was more than likely bought by a Labour supporter who didn’t care in the end that it wasn’t painted by HC. The only people who cared (and seem to still care all these years after she left parliment) are National supporters.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    James, before I your question how old were you in 2002 when Clark’s fraud was discovered?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. itstricky (1,545 comments) says:

    1. Mallard was convicted of assault and is still an MP.

    After which of the two incidents did David G actually cease being an MP?

    All the other examples are pretty vague and wafffly but I agree generally you can’t trust any of them (any politician that is. I don’t believe humans divide themselves neatly down a line of left and right. You’d be silly if you beliefs allowed you to think as such)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    In 2002 I was 25. Oh and I voted for National up until and including the 2008 election and remember my own righteous indignation with regards to Paintagate. Thankfully I built a bridge and got over it.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Clarification also that Mallard was never convicted of assault. he was found guilty of fighting in public due to Tau not pressing charges. The lesser charge carried a much lighter sentance which did not require his removal from parliament. That of course doesn’t change the fact Ducky is a unbelievable waste of tax payers dollars and oxygen.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Nookin (3,034 comments) says:

    James.
    Like I said, it’s a matter of the price. In this case there was a prima facie case of fraud but the price of taking it further wasn’t worth it. I actually don’t disagree with that decision. That doesn’t make the blemish go away, however.

    Pete: Banks did not gain anything personally in the particular circumstances because he lost the election. Had he won, he would have had an ally to whom he may have been beholden. The idea of the disclosure requirements is that people get to see the people to whom elected representatives may be beholden. The personal gain is the money. The more important issue is the integrity of the electoral system. False returns tend to undermine that integrity.

    There is no exemption if you lose the election. After all, Banks did go on to stand again — albeit for Parliament and not the Mayoralty.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Nookin I am not positive but I don’t think there was any requirement for personal gain in regards to the Banks charge. It is possible this is the same with HC. I agree it doesn’t remove a stain from HC. I guess old Uncle Helen doesn’t care any more but I don’t think it really effects what is happening now.

    Agree with you completely on yoru response to PG.

    In the end even if they were woeful in the past in handling corruption I appluaude any improvement in policing this area. I will happily line up and hand bullets to Len Browns firing squad if he were ever covicted of a crim as corruption should be stamped out no matter which side of the spectrum it is happening on. Hopefully this gives the police confidence to persue these sorts of charges and it is not left to private citisens in the future.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Paulus (2,499 comments) says:

    Did I understand re the Clark painting signature that it was purchased and burnt by her Electoral Secretary
    - who also I believe may have once had a marital relationship to Jim Anderton.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    Milky: Are you serious?? Do you really believe the Solicitor-General and the Attorney General don’t confer..often?

    I of course have no evidence that Wilson applied pressure or otherwise influenced the Solicitor General at the time…but don’t you find it a little odd that the Police Commissioner’s office found there was a prima facie case of fraud, but Crown Law decided it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute Clark?

    As for signing “knick-nacks” like rugby jerseys and balls and the like, Clark’s painting is in an entirely different category…As Chuck has said it was signed on the front, where painters put their signatures…As for said painting’s fate, I am reliably informed that Jim Anderton’s ex-wife bought it, and it was promptly burned.

    Paulus: You beat me to it

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    James, I believe the painting may have been bought by a Labour supporter. He certainly was not a Helen Clark fan after he found out he had been sold a forgery.

    Let’s go back a little further than 2002. Do you recall how Clark lied to get rid of Police Commissioner Peter Doone and replace him with someone of her choosing beholden to her?

    In deciding to prosecute Clark it was found that there was a prima facie case against her but it was not in the public interest to prosecute. I cannot recall the exact offenses she could have been charged with but they carried a penalty of at least 7 years and were therefore much more serious than what John Banks was found guilty of.

    There there was the case of David Benson-Peep abusing and perving on school girls. Again there was a prima facie case but not in the public interest to prosecute.

    Then we have a Nat MP drive a tractor up a few stairs at Parliament and he was charged. The Clark government was the most currupt in recent NZ history.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. RRM (9,435 comments) says:

    the Opposition will try to paint the Government as being held up by an MP found guilty of an (local body) electoral offence.

    With the greatest of respect;

    Mallard throwing a punch at Tau Henare did no real harm to the country, they are both big boys.

    David Garret’s baby passport thing was distasteful but did no real harm to the country.

    Richard Worth having an illicit root might have swayed his actions in some small way but did no real harm to the country.

    Clark’s painting thing shows an easy way with the truth and a willingness to rip some fool off in the interests of supporting a charity auction.

    The failure of retired MP Doug Graham’sinvestment fund and his subsequent conviction (on what I am told are fairly technical matters of investment and directorship law) sucks for him and his investors, but it does no real harm to the country.

    But electoral fraud and corruption is one of the most serious things a politician can do, short of actual treason in a time of war. it goes to the heart of our democracy and the matter of whether we can have any faith the government is acting in our interests, or their own, or the interests of those paying them in secret.

    I am GOBSMACKED that DPF would minimise electoral fraud in this way.

    This is the WORST criminal conviction of a NZ MP in recent times, marginally worse in its implications than even Philip Field, although Field is indisputably the worse bad bastard by a mile.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    David, if you have any actual evidence of political interference in prosecutorial decision I’d be fascinated to see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    Mikey: Did you not read my post? I said that I didn’t – and I don’t – have any evidence of improper interference in the decision not to charge Clark…but then there never would be any such evidence when you think about it…I am quite certain Wilson would never have put anything in writing, and any conversation she had would have been one on one.

    You have no doubt heard the only saying about justice not only needing to be done, but needing to be SEEN to be done? When the Courts consider allegations of bias and preferential treatment, they always say that the perception of something can be just as damaging as the thing itself.

    to me it stinks to high heaven that the original investigation concluded there was a case of fraud, the Police Commissioners office confirmed that opinion…and then when it reaches quasi political quarters suddenly it is not in the public interest to prosecute.

    And in answer to someone else, the prospective charge was fraud…just like my case…and in my case it was somehow in the public interest to prosecute for an offence committed 27 years earlier when the investigation concluded – correctly – that the passport had never been used for any purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Chuck Bird (4,673 comments) says:

    “But electoral fraud and corruption is one of the most serious things a politician can do, short of actual treason in a time of war. it goes to the heart of our democracy and the matter of whether we can have any faith the government is acting in our interests, or their own, or the interests of those paying them in secret.”

    Unlike pregnancy there are degrees of electoral fraud. However, electoral fraud was not found guilty of that so stop embellishing things. He was found guilty of filing a false return in relation to the donations so stop embellishing things which carries a two years penalty. Clark and Benson-Peep could have faced much more jail time if they had of been charged and found guilty.

    If you think the penalties should be swapped I suggest you lobby for a law change. I do not think you will get much support.

    I doubt if another MP ever signed a painting they did not paint committing forgery. However there would be plenty of MPs who had done what Banks had done. He was just unlucky someone took a private prosecution.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Nostalgia-NZ (4,904 comments) says:

    nookin. All good points. I have read the Judgement and no surprises there. I always thought this was straight forward. I can’t give JB credit for not responding to Dotcom, a response would not suggest ‘taking a bribe’ or anything of the sort. I can only see JB’s lack of response as acting out of concern for himself or other reasons we don’t know at this point. He could have registered his concerns, if he had any on Dotcom’s behalf, in writing. The fact that he simply pretending there was nothing going on elevated the situation to a different level from where he gave several different accounts. If you think about that it is a critical point. Doing nothing, compared to putting pen to paper and making inquiries from the departments concerned as if Dotcom was nothing more than a donor or political supporter are an ice age apart and set the tone for what was to come. In most circumstances nothing would have bounced back on Banks other than DC having a poor opinion of him, but he’d left himself open and we can only speculate what his cross examination would have resulted in over the claim of an offer for 200,000.

    As it turns out responding in writing about Dotcom’s concerns may well have taken away any inference of a bribe for example, because JB would have demonstrated what help, legally, he could offer, or was prepared to offer, Dotcom. Which also goes to a good point you made last week about the filling out of the forms after the election was lost. If he had run his defence that way, having been careful with what he’d said publicly to that point or in his interview, he may have succeeded that it was a careless oversight from which no harm followed. He could have been found not guilty, or at least had a stronger case for discharge without conviction. Of course that would have been a manipulation. Easy to be wise after the fact, but having fought the charges and lost on credibility he loses points on the argument for discharge without conviction.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. B A W (98 comments) says:

    The judge ordered a presentence report which considered home detention. Sounds quite serious to me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    BAW: I’m not sure what seeking a pre-sentence report re home detention means…Unfortunately it appears our two resident criminal law specialists are AWOL just now…Graeme E probably by contract, FES perhaps because he is busy…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. mikenmild (10,644 comments) says:

    I would hazard a guess that it means that the judge wants to turn his mind to a custodial sentence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    Yes, I think that’s probably a fair inference..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Nostalgia, I think you are getting a bit confused as to what Banks was found guilty of. There is no implication of bribary what so ever and if there was he would have been gone a long time ago. He has been found to have acted incorectly in the way he filed his decliration in that he deliberatly set actions in motion so that he could falsly claim the report correct when he knew it would not be. Banks actually did the right thing in my opinion by telling DotCom to go jump when he was in proson. If he had handled DotCom’s donations correctly then there would have been nothing DotCom could have done about it.

    Chuck I am not going to argue that previous governments and ministers have done things that are both corrupt and should have resulted in them being kicked out. i agree. HC and BP may well fall into that catagory. As I said before it made me so damn angry at the time. I am however glad that a step in the right direction has been made to try and remove this sort of corruption from our parliament and hope that it gives the police and AG in future more confidence to go forward with these prosicutions knowing they will have the backing of the public to do so. Field was the first and Banks was the second.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. David Garrett (6,372 comments) says:

    James: With respect (and I say that sincerely) it doesn’t – and shouldn’t – matter a rat’s rectum whether prosecutions have “the backing of the public”…we don’t have trial by the mob in this country, as well we shouldn’t..

    I do agree though that it is more than a little disquieting that a High Court Judge has effectively found that the police’s decision not to prosecute was wrong…there will be some red faces at Police HQ I suspect…

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. JamesBlake (54 comments) says:

    Fair enough I used the wrong language with Baking. Perhaps I should have said confidence.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Pete George (22,784 comments) says:

    The Standard seems to be regularly dissing DPF, with lprent again today making the sort of accusations he would ban anyone else for making if they were aimed at Labour (his accusations look to be deliberately malicious).

    But lprent proves his haste or problems with comprehension can result in making basic errors, ironically in a post called David Farrar badly needs night school.

    I don’t think the Judge has actually helped the Government by delaying the decision on entering a conviction. Now that it is the Judge’s role to care about the impact on the Government. I’m just saying I think it would have been cleaner to make the decision as the same time as the guilty verdict.

    My bold and italics as my jaw dropped to the floor at the sight of a self-professed political commentator being that blindingly ignorant about the relationship between the courts and the executive. Or being so ignorant of the usual legal processes in NZ that they don’t know what a pre-sentencing report is and what it implies.

    What does he think? That the courts even consider what the government wants has any relevance to a judges decision? What a dumb fool.

    As was quickly pointed out to him, DPF made what was fairly obviously a typo error (now corrected).

    lprent goes on:

    But to round out the night class for David Farrar, political and legal dunce, and much of the rather badly educated media…

    But he seems to be making an irrelevant point, confusing pre-sentence reports with what I think DPF was referring to, that it would have been cleaner if the conviction had been entered yesterday rather than delay it until the sentencing. Of course a pre-sentence report will precede a sentencing.

    A double clanger at the Double Standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Nostalgia-NZ (4,904 comments) says:

    That’s right JamesBlake 2.22. However, I was responding to the following from nookin where he talked about JB resisting ‘overtures’ from DC.

    ‘The money was accompanied by the expectation of services to be rendered. It is to Banks’ credit that he resisted not only the overtures but also the temptation to do a deal. How many people out there really believe that Dotcom would not have been open to the suggestion that there were ways of making this all go away?’

    Pointing out that because JB ‘shut up shop’ rather than respond to DC’s plea from Mt Eden the whole situation reduced to the question as to why Banks had not simply responded as to what he could or couldn’t do in response to the call for help. He pretended he didn’t know DC and had no relationship with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. fernglas (100 comments) says:

    Before a Judge can sentence someone to home detention as an alternative to prison they have to have a home detention annex to the pre-sentence report, which advises of the suitability of the offender and the address for Home D. The fact that the judge has asked for one certainly means he hasn’t ruled out a custodial sentence, but in this case it is likely that he is covering his bases to give him the widest range of options possible

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. peterwn (3,150 comments) says:

    David Garrett
    “I do agree though that it is more than a little disquieting that a High Court Judge has effectively found that the police’s decision not to prosecute was wrong…there will be some red faces at Police HQ I suspect”

    Especially when taken in the context of all the other electoral cases referred to police but where no action was taken. I hate to say this, but it does make me wonder whether senior police were too scared to take action in case of possible retaliation by a future incoming left wing government.

    For starters, there seems a good case to prosecute David Cunliffe for his tweet during the Christchurch byelection.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. BlairM (2,286 comments) says:

    How about “no”, because he didn’t do anything wrong? We wouldn’t have a political system in New Zealand if it wasn’t for wealthy anonymous donors. Banks has done nothing that most other politicians have not done themselves. The only reason he is in trouble now is because he was set upon by a donor who clearly thought he could get something for his money, and threw his toys out of the cot when he didn’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Sir Cullen's Sidekick (785 comments) says:

    Well DPF – your stocks are really soaring high…after being the poster boy for Greens, you have just now become a poster boy for TV1′s communists. They showed your photo and your comment that Banksie should resign….great!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    In my view, Banksy told porkies and the evidence against him is rather compelling. If he had taken the stand to defend himself, then I would take the opposing view. Hypothetical at this stage, but I think he would also fail on appeal. I hope he resigns from politics in the knowledge he has contributed much, and enjoy his time with his family and friends.

    He’s a good man who has achieved more than most men ever would.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Warren Murray (271 comments) says:

    I heard Prebble on National Radio, he was a complete fool and made Mike Williams look good by comparison. Prebble tried to downplay Banks’ action as a misdemeanor, and said he still didnt believe Banks had done anything wrong. This from the chief propaganda merchant for a party that campaigns on a law and order platform. Doesn’t matter what Whyte says or does, Prebble lost my vote for Act this morning.

    If National dont need Banks, and he is certainly no asset to Act, he should go.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. goldnkiwi (991 comments) says:

    It seems fairly obvious that Dotcom was not the man Banks thought he was from the time of the donation and the raid and incarceration, most of us would distance ourselves from that taint if we thought ourselves law abiding and honourable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Paul Marsden (986 comments) says:

    goldnkiwi (785 comments) says:

    June 6th, 2014 at 8:51 pm
    It seems fairly obvious that Dotcom was not the man Banks thought he was from the time of the donation and the raid and incarceration, most of us would distance ourselves from that taint if we thought ourselves law abiding and honourable.

    Vote: 0 0 Leave a Reply

    Perhaps, but ask yourself…. why didn’t Banksy then subsequently return the $50,000 to the fat guy, because on the face of it, it appears that every $ the fat guy has, is tainted, stolen money. That would have been the true measure of Banksy.

    Some interesting, legal arguments here at a later date perhaps?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. publicwatchdog (2,099 comments) says:

    FYI Kiwibloggers?

    WHY JOHN BANKS SHOULD LEAVE PARLIAMENT – NOW! (In my considered opinion)

    Some useful FACTS and LAW regarding the rather pivotal definition of ‘convicted’ / ‘conviction’?

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0087/latest/DLM308531.html

    How vacancies created

    55How vacancies created
    (1)The seat of any member of Parliament shall become vacant—

    (d)if he or she is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for life or by 2 or more years’ imprisonment, or is convicted of a corrupt practice, or is reported by the High Court in its report on the trial of an election petition to have been proved guilty of a corrupt practice; or
    ____________________________________________________________

    LAW DICTIONARY DEFINITIONS OF ‘CONVICTION’:

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/conviction

    Conviction

    The outcome of a criminal prosecution which concludes in a judgment that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The juncture of a criminal proceeding during which the question of guilt is ascertained. In a case where the perpetrator has been adjudged guilty and sentenced, a record of the summary proceedings brought pursuant to any penal statute before one or more justices of the peace or other properly authorized persons.

    The terms conviction and convicted refer to the final judgment on a verdict of guilty, a plea of guilty, or a plea of nolo contendere. They do not include a final judgment that has been deleted by a pardon, set aside, reversed, or otherwise rendered inoperative.

    _________________________________________________________________

    thelawdictionary.org/conviction/

    The Law Dictionary Featuring Black’s Law Dictionary Free Online Legal Dictionary 2nd Ed.

    Law Dictionary: What is CONVICTION? definition of CONVICTION (Black’s Law Dictionary)

    In practice. In a general sense, the result of a criminal trial which ends in a judgment or sentence that the prisoner is guilty as charged. Finding a person guilty by verdict of a jury. 1 Bish. Crim. Law,

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/conviction

    Definition of conviction in English:
    conviction
    Line breaks: con|vic¦tion
    Pronunciation: /kənˈvɪkʃ(ə)n /
    NOUN

    1A formal declaration by the verdict of a jury or the decision of a judge in a court of law that someone is guilty of a criminal offence:
    she had a previous conviction for a similar offence
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    (THE FOLLOWING RESEARCH DONE BY FELLOW ANTI-CORRUPTION ‘PUBLIC WATCHDOG’ – EX-POLICE PROSECUTOR GRACE HADEN):
    ……………………
    It appears that we have no definition for “convicted” in our statutes anymore and somehow through sleight of hand the word conviction has become to mean something after being found guilty.

    The old crimes act pre June 2013 defined conviction in section 3
    3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment”—For the purposes of this
    Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

    (a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
    (b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
    (c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44
    or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act
    1957; or
    (d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he
    pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
    Cf. 1945, No. 23, s. 2 (2)

    In para. (c) the words in square brackets were inserted by s. 15
    (1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1977. See s. 15 (2) of that Act.

    I have no idea why this was removed from the legislation 1 July 2013, bysection 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85). But it appears that a huge hole was left in the legislation

    If Wylie found Banks guilty Banks is convicted of the offence .
    Guilty is synonymous with Convicted
    The scenario used to be convicted – sentenced.
    Now it appears to be found guilty – convicted – sentenced .. yet there appears to be no legal precedent or legal foundation for this .

    The interpretation act gives no definition for convicted or guilty
    Since our legislation does not define Convicted anymore we have to rely on the interpretation of the legislation and the common dictionary meaning

    By way of argument that supports that conviction and Guilty mean the same you don’t have to look far.

    Section 147 Dismissal of charge Criminal Procedure Act 2011 makes the statement “ (c) in relation to a charge to be tried, or being tried, by a jury, the Judge is satisfied that, as a matter of law, a properly directed jury could not reasonably convict the defendant.”

    So how can a jury convict but a judge can’t ?

    Also when you appeal the guilty verdict you appeal your conviction . you don’t wait till sentencing you appeal it before sentence .
    No one appeals a guilty verdict they always appeal conviction .

    Crimes act is full of examples which infer that convicted and guilty mean the same
    Crimes act offences e.g 143 Included offences
    If the commission of the offence alleged (as described in the enactment creating the offence or in the charge) includes the commission of any other offence, the defendant may be convictedof that other offence if it is proved, even if the whole offence in the charge is not proved.

    And of particular significance is section 106 sentencing act

    Discharge without conviction

    (1) If a person who is charged with an offence is found guilty or pleads guilty, the court may discharge the offender without conviction, unless by any enactment applicable to the offence the court is required to impose a minimum sentence.
    The court has the power not to convict , to discharge without conviction . but at the time when the guilty verdict is given the common interpretation is that the person is convicted of the offence.

    So what act section case law legal precedent is any one relying on to say that Banks is not convicted?
    The judge did not specifically state that he would not enter a conviction at this time .

    Banks is there for convicted and should be removed from office .

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    UPDATE! (Grace just discovered THIS in Justice Wylie’s verdict:

    [6] The information against Mr Banks was laid on 10 December 2012. Sections 105 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 apply to Judge-alone trials. However, those provisions only came into force on 1 July 2013. Pursuant to s 397 of the Act, this matter has been determined in accordance with the law as it was before that date.

    3. Meaning of “convicted on indictment”—For the purposes of this

    Act, a person shall be deemed to be convicted on indictment if—

    (a) He pleads guilty on indictment; or
    (b) He is found guilty on indictment; or
    (c) He is committed to the Supreme Court for sentence under section 44
    or section [153A or section] 168 of the Summary Proceedings Act
    1957; or
    (d) After having been committed to the Supreme Court for trial, he
    pleads guilty under section 321 of this Act.
    Cf. 1945, No. 23, s. 2 (2)

    In para. (c) the words in square brackets were inserted by s. 15
    (1) of the Judicature Amendment Act 1977. See s. 15 (2) of that Act.

    3 Meaning of convicted on indictment
    [Repealed]
    Section 3: repealed, on 1 July 2013, by section 6 of the Crimes Amendment Act (No 4) 2011 (2011 No 85).
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________

    USEFUL INFORMATION FROM THE NZ CORRECTIONS WEBSITE:

    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/over-representation-of-maori-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplification/2-3.html

    2.2 Prosecutions and convictions

    Once an individual has been apprehended for an offence (alleged or suspected), Police must decide on whether to initiate a formal criminal prosecution. Such decisions are based on a number of considerations: the seriousness of the offence, the adequacy of evidence to be presented to the court, the number and type of associated offences for which the person may also have been arrested on that occasion, previous offending history, and so on. In some cases, evidence may be more than adequate for prosecution, but the remaining considerations militate against prosecution, and the offender is subjected to Police Diversion 1.

    When prosecution proceeds, the resulting criminal justice processes typically lead either to conviction 2 or acquittal.

    ….

    __________________________________________________________________________________________________

    2 Some offenders are convicted but subsequently “discharged without conviction”.
    http://www.corrections.govt.nz/resources/over-representation-of-maori-in-the-criminal-justice-system/2.0-criminal-justice-system-bias-and-amplifica

    2.3 Sentencing

    Similarly as for Police decisions to prosecute, a range of factors are taken into consideration, in this case by judges, when imposing sentence on convicted offenders.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________________

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10122473/John-Banks-found-guilty-will-stay-in-Parliament

    Leader of the House Gerry Brownlee said Banks had not been convicted and therefore could remain in Parliament. Banks will probably apply for a discharge without conviction at his sentencing on August 1.
    …………………..
    ________________________________________________________________________________

    This morning – I rang the Office of the Speaker in order to find out the definition of ‘conviction’ that was being relied upon, to say that ‘Banks had not been convicted’ and who had given this advice?

    (Given that the clear definition of ‘conviction’ that I had discovered in legal dictionaries was that ‘conviction’ was a guilty verdict in a criminal proceedings – which is what had happened to John Banks yesterday).

    I was told that this advice had come from Crown Law.

    So – I rang Crown Law and spoke to Jan Fulstow, and asked the same question.

    She said that the job of Crown Law was to advise Government – not members of the public.
    I explained that I was not just a member of the public, but one the original three who had made a complaint to the Police, and that I had a lot to do with this case.

    She refused to discuss this matter with me.

    I told her that in my considered opinion, Crown Law was misleading Parliament and that I intended to make a fuss about it.

    Which is exactly what I am now doing ….

    Penny Bright

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. nickb (3,659 comments) says:

    Non-payment of rates and spamming every blog site in the country does not a protest make.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Warren Murray (271 comments) says:

    Comment above, that Banks wouldn’t be in this mess if he used a trust like sleazy Brown. That is WRONG!

    Banks solicited the money from KDC. If he had simply declared it in his return, THEN he would be in the clear. Sure he might have taken some flak about the association, but it would have passed quickly and it would nor have involved a trial in court.

    If he had used a Trust, as others have suggested, KDC would have outed him as a liar, hypocrite, etc. Might not have ended in court, but KDC would still have exposed Banks as a liar.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. jackinabox (570 comments) says:

    If I was John Banks and was certain I’d done nothing wrong I’d appeal the judges decision and tell the people that are calling for my resignation to “now f… off.”

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.