Banks private prosecution begins

Written By: - Date published: 8:23 am, December 11th, 2012 - 36 comments
Categories: john banks, law and "order" - Tags:

The hearing into the private prosecution of John Banks over his ‘anonymous’ mayoral donations begins today. That the private prosecution has got this far shows the judge believes there is a prima facie case – which puts the Police to shame for failing to take Banks to court. Banks is trying to avoid taking the stand, but I don’t see how he ultimately can.

I think this is going to end badly for Banks. It’s clear as daylight that he knew he had received donations from both SkyCity and Kim Dotcom. He received the SkyCity cheque personally at a meeting called for the specific purpose of handing over the cheque. He had a phone call with Dotcom’s staff to confirm the donation had been received and to thank him. Later, Banks would identify the donation as a reason to not be seen to be associated with Dotcom when he was in jail. Yet, Banks signed a statutory declaration that noted those donations as anonymous.

If Banks goes down in this case, it’s going to get very hard for Key to keep him on as a minister (Banks’ seat won’t be automatically vacated because the offence needs to be punishable by over 2 years in prison for that). Key has repeatedly claimed that the legal test is all he is worried about. But I’m sure he’ll find a way to worm out of that.

36 comments on “Banks private prosecution begins ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. coronial typer 1
    11 December 2012 at 8:34 am

    I am so looking forward to this.

    Parliament is beginning to smell like Roquefort cheese.

    [lprent: Not directed at you CT. Just a general warning.

    Remember that this is front of a court. People trying to walk past the legal bounds will get a severe bans. If you want to troll, then this is not the place for it becaus ethere will be quite a lot of moderator attention focused here today.

    ]

    • aerobubble 1.1
      11 December 2012 at 10:07 am

      A man was fired for his union membership, yet there’s one minister who lost a portfolio for the Pike river mine disaster who got less work for the same pay, and it seems also that there are many civil engineers who looked over, help designed, who built or who authenticated the CTV building who have yet to see any punishment.

      Seems very weird to me, the more powerful they are, the more educated, the less they have to do despite even deaths. The less educated, the less powerful, and you’re fired.

      Insurance premiums are going to rise if there is no responsibility amongst those working in the building industry for their buildings. No wonder so many are jumping the ditch, work is so underpaid, and so easy to get fired and be exposed to downside costs (which cannot be abated by healthy wages when in work).

  2. post-colonial viper 2
    11 December 2012 at 8:40 am

    Where are the chips ? Where are the chips ?

    This beats TV.

  3. CodyHM 3
    11 December 2012 at 8:49 am

    His seat wouldn’t automatically be vacated? Forgive my ignorance but that means he’d stay as a Minister in Parliament?
    I’m sure somehow Johnny boy will keep him in – though that rather perturbs me knowing that someone convicted of a criminal offence gets to stay in Government.
    Does anyone know exactly what the charges are?

  4. TheContrarian 4
    11 December 2012 at 8:58 am

    I hope he gets fucked.

  5. marsman 5
    11 December 2012 at 9:39 am

    Who is bringing the private prosecution?

    • Graeme Edgeler 5.1
      11 December 2012 at 9:53 am

      Graham McCready (sp?), the same person who brought the private prosecution against Trevor Mallard.

      • marsman 5.1.1
        11 December 2012 at 10:54 am

        Thank you Graeme.

      • Whaleoil 5.1.2
        11 December 2012 at 12:47 pm

        Is that the same Graham McCready in court today for a pre-trial hearing on charges of blackmail?

        R v McCready before Justice Collins in Wellington…

        Why yes I think it is.

        • bad12 5.1.2.1
          11 December 2012 at 12:55 pm

          Your point being???, are you suggesting that this,(supposed), appearance in another Court of the person prosecuting Bank’s in some way disqualifies the complainant from that prosecution???,

          Perhaps, (snigger), you consider Banks to be ‘a true innocent’….

          • One Tāne Viper 5.1.2.1.1
            11 December 2012 at 12:59 pm

            It’s the usual witless wingnut excuse: “He did it too!”

            Except, as one would expect from the flailing, thrashing, Mr. Oil, he isn’t even comparing similar offences.

            • bad12 5.1.2.1.1.1
              11 December 2012 at 1:06 pm

              LOLZ, yeah i don’t expect to hear anything from Blubber-boy that would be in any way educational or mind-changing,

              Just gave ‘it’ a wee poke looking for signs of life, deliberately left ‘intelligent’ out of that last bit as there’s no point questioning known facts…

  6. Colon Diaper 6
    11 December 2012 at 9:50 am

    I heard there will be video evidence involving liaisons with a p user

  7. burt 7
    11 December 2012 at 9:56 am

    That the private prosecution has got this far shows the judge believes there is a prima facie case

    He needs a little retrospective validation and we all need to move on… Hey if we do that and kill off the court case supporters of corrupt self serving government might say he’s the best we ever had….

  8. Graeme Edgeler 8
    11 December 2012 at 10:00 am

    If Banks goes down in this case, it’s going to get very hard for Key to keep him on as a minister (Banks’ seat won’t be automatically vacated because the offence needs to be punishable by over 2 years in prison for that).

    If Banks is convicted, that will automatically result in him losing his seat. MPs lose their seats if convicted of an offence punishable by at least two years’ imprisonment. If the maximum is exactly two years’ that’s still enough.

    • burt 8.1
      11 December 2012 at 10:05 am

      That’s why we need retrospective validations Graeme – it quickly kills off pesky private prosecutions and lets the people who know the law better than us (because they wrote it) follow their own interpretation and ignore silly people who know nothing … like pesky Auditor Generals and the like….

      • Graeme Edgeler 8.1.1
        11 December 2012 at 10:47 am

        That’s why we need retrospective validations Graeme – it quickly kills off pesky private prosecutions

        Section 6 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Act, which you appear to be discussing, provided that:

        6 Act does not affect criminal liability
        Nothing in this Act affects the criminal liability of any person.

         

        • alwyn 8.1.1.1
          11 December 2012 at 2:30 pm

          Graeme Edgeler.
          A little bit off topic but if retrospective validation is being discussed I might be allowed to get this through.
          Some years ago Harry Duynhoeven took Dutch citizenship. This is (or was) grounds for losing your seat in Parliament. The then speaker, Jonathon Hunt refused to accept the notification of this and the then Government whipped through a retrospective law change so Harry could keep his seat.
          A lawyer friend of mine said, although from a very cursory reading of the law, that in his view the seat had been vacated at the moment of taking the citizenship and NOT when Parliament was informed. If this was the case the effect of the law whipped through was to appoint someone to a vacant electorate seat without a by-election. Did you ever have a look at this?

          • Graeme Edgeler 8.1.1.1.1
            11 December 2012 at 3:44 pm

            I did, and thought the behaviour of the government in legislating was poor, but the decision of the Speaker to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee wasn’t as bad as many made out. The question of who gets to be a member of Parliament has always been a question of privilege (in particular, the composition privilege of Parliament), and I am confident that decision was made on advice from the Clerk.

    • Rich 8.2
      11 December 2012 at 10:34 am

      He’d be able to stand again if not actually in jail when the by-election was called, though? And I’m sure the voters of Epsom would back him to the hilt.

  9. David Viperious H 9
    11 December 2012 at 10:05 am

    But Now will be the time the Lawyers earn their money by trying to stop shonkyJohn2 getting into court, as he must know if he’s convicted, then ShonkyJohn1 won’t be able to keep him around any more. And that means no more easy taxpayer troughing for him and maybe even a fine, or gulp Jail.

    • burt 9.1
      11 December 2012 at 10:06 am

      No lawyers required… Just validate and move on – The self serving Clark administration showed the way to use parliament in the best interest of the government …..

  10. bad12 10
    11 December 2012 at 12:00 pm

    Dear John,

    It’s ok you can appear in the Wellington District Court and i promise not to show up with a mouthful of vitriol explaining your short-comings as i see them in the most abusive and humiliating language i can muster as i did for your last appearance at the same venue while you were Minister of Police in a previous Government,

    Be a good little boy and show at least a modicum of testicular fortitude by fronting up at the district Court to face your accusers and answer their accusations wont you???…

    • post-colonial viper 10.1
      11 December 2012 at 2:37 pm

      Err.. what is “testicular fortitude” ?

      “Intestinal fortitude” makes sense.

      • One Tāne Viper 10.1.1
        11 December 2012 at 2:46 pm

        Bad12 is saying Banks hasn’t got the balls to show his face in court.

      • Graeme Edgeler 10.1.2
        11 December 2012 at 3:41 pm

        If someone lacks intestinal fortitude they haven’t go the guts (to do something), so presumably, someone who lacks testicular fortitude doesn’t have the balls…

  11. post-colonial viper 11
    11 December 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Thanks OTV. I am still grappling with the sexual allusions of the Pakeha.

    • One Tāne Viper 11.1
      11 December 2012 at 3:08 pm

      Don’t mention it. I should point out that it is not the sexual connotations of testicles that makes them an appropriate metaphor for fortitude, but rather their function as a source of testosterone.

    • bad12 11.2
      11 December 2012 at 6:36 pm

      No need for me to answer that particular query then as it has been so abley addressed by other comments,

      I was at the Wellington District Court on Banks previous appearance and had the pleasure of being able to directly address the then Minister of Police directly while He awaited the Judge,

      Upon being called to the dock Banks showed a definite lack of any sort of fortitude and there was a few seconds of physical grappling as Banks tried, (and failed), to manhandle His Police liason officer Inspector Sharky into the dock ahead of Him as if in some way Sharky shared His guilt,

      Like all ‘newbies’ to the Court process Banks looked terrified at having to enter the dock and plead…