D Day for John Banks

Written By: - Date published: 7:58 am, June 5th, 2014 - 99 comments
Categories: act, john banks, national, national/act government - Tags: ,

This afternoon Justice Wyllie in the High Court at Auckland is expected to announce his decision on the guilt or otherwise of John Banks of the charge of falsely declaring that donations from Kim Dotcom and Sky City were anonymous.

This is a criminal trial and proof beyond reasonable doubt is required.  Banks may be acquitted on the basis that he made an error in not reading the return properly yet signing it as being true and correct.  Although you would expect a former Mayor of Auckland and Cabinet Minister to be able to process a printed form properly it may be that the Judge accepts that Banks made a mistake, or at least that the Judge is not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Banks did not make a mistake.

The trial was as colourful as the combatants.  There was an intense disagreement between Banks and Dotcom about what happened.  The splitting up of the Dotcom donation into 2 cheques of $25,000 each and Banks’ campaign having a target of ten donations of $25,000 each will no doubt attract attention.

There is also the Sky City donation.  The Judge will have to consider the implications of Banks receiving a cheque in a sealed envelope, handing it to his press advisor to give to the campaign financial manager and then failing to appreciate that Sky City had donated money to him.

No doubt the National Party is going through the different possible scenarios to work out a game plan and I suspect these are as follows:

  1.  Banks is acquitted.  National breathes a sigh of relief, political life goes on and Banks bows out of politics quietly.
  2.  Banks is found guilty.  His counsel ask for an adjournment so that they can argue for a discharge without conviction and this is granted.  Everything then depends on the success of this application.  I suspect that the chances of an adjournment would be reasonable although the prospects of a discharge without conviction must be poor.
  3.  If and when the Judge convicts him Banks is out of Parliament.  Within two days the Registrar has to inform the Speaker of the conviction.  Banks is then gone.

If this occurs then the next issue will be should a by election be held.  If a vacancy occurs within six months of the date that Parliament is to expire or the date of the next election then by a 75% vote Parliament can resolve not to hold a by election.  I am reasonably sure this would be the preference.  Parliament is scheduled to rise on July 31 and it is doubtful that a new MP could be elected by then.  National may struggle to get a majority on crucial votes in the meantime however.

No doubt eyes will be on Twitter this afternoon to see what the result is.  I will update this post when the result is known.

99 comments on “D Day for John Banks ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. toad 1
    5 June 2014 at 8:08 am

    So today’s question is whether Banks is a corrupt, lying, sleazy Tory scumbag or just a lying, sleazy Tory scumbag .

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1
      5 June 2014 at 8:13 am

      And whether the National Party will have a majority in the house for the next seven weeks 😈

      • amirite 1.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 9:53 am

        oooh, I’m afraid I know which way it’ll go and I hope I’m wrong.

        • Ennui 1.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 2:07 pm

          Of course Banks is guilty…..but will the Court get nobbled or similar? I remember the Wine Box judgement when a pile of sleazy crooks managed to “obtain” a ruling in their favour. Just wondering if the Tory elite think John is worth pulling the strings for?

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.2
        5 June 2014 at 10:51 am

        THis is why the budget date was set so that it would be out of the way before the court decision

    • Tracey 1.2
      5 June 2014 at 8:18 am

      criminal corrupt, lying, sleazy Tory scumbag

      • Tracey 1.2.1
        5 June 2014 at 1:52 pm

        if found guilty.

        If he is found not guilty the bar for honest drops down to minister for oravida levels.

        My guess is not guilty.

  2. Tracey 2
    5 June 2014 at 8:16 am

    Filing a false return of electoral donations and expenses A candidate who files a return under section 112A that is false in any material particular commits an offence and is liable on conviction— to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, if he or she filed the return knowing it to be false in any material particular; or to a fine not exceeding $5,000 in any other case, unless the candidate proves that— he or she had no intention to misstate or conceal the facts; and he or she took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure the information in the return was accurate.

    Not just a former mayor, but company director, mp, cabinet minister, former executive director of a finnce company…

    An honest person with integrity as claimed b banks and his witnesses does not sign something as true and correct if they havent read it.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      5 June 2014 at 9:05 am

      The real kicker is the combination of Kim Dotcom and Skycity. If it were one or the other, I doubt it would go to trial. But both of them together, and both with different angles: asking Kim specifically to split the cheque, and in the Skycity case being handed the cheque and not ‘realising’ it was a donation, strain credulity.

      IMO the strongest argument is “signing something without reading it is a stupid mistake to make, especially when it comes to anything financial”, but from what I can tell that was never argued by the crown and doesn’t seem to play into the actual law at hand here.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:15 am

        There’s evidence that devices were used to subvert electoral law. Handing envelopes through intermediaries when they’re all in the same room, cheque-splitting. Banks could not read the return because he already knew it was false.

        We’ll see what the judge thinks in a few hours 🙂

    • toad 2.2
      5 June 2014 at 9:06 am

      Have to say I never managed to work out why Banks and Brash weren’t prosecuted over Huljich

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huljich_Wealth_Management_%28NZ%29_Ltd

      • Tracey 2.2.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:33 am

        another example of where honest and full of integrity john banks took fees to be executive director of hujlich but didnt read or monitor anything…

  3. Tracey 3
    5 June 2014 at 8:21 am

    Its a defence if he took all reasonable steps or was mistaken…

    Not bothering to read it cant meet reasonable steps… Mistaken might be a stretch too.

  4. Weepu's beard 4
    5 June 2014 at 8:21 am

    The Judge has already signaled his intentions with the cosy defence of Banks after the earwax incident.

  5. JK 5
    5 June 2014 at 9:12 am

    I won’t be surprised if the verdict is a not guilty on the grounds of genuine mistake on Banks’ part – slap on the wrist banksie, and don’t do it again !!

    • ianmac 5.1
      5 June 2014 at 9:30 am

      The experts say it hangs on the “knowingly” signing a document. Pretty sure that in the legal sense this will be very difficult to prove. He did know about two of the donations but what happened to them next is the crux so the experts say.
      We believe that Mr Banks is a mean-spirited unpleasant fellow but there are thousands who believe in him. He is now a spent force whatever happens, so he will disappear from public office.
      Did he hold good to his beliefs even though from my point of view those beliefs were pretty twisted?

  6. Clemgeopin 6
    5 June 2014 at 9:22 am

    If he is acquitted because “he did not read what he was signing”, then EVERY politician can get away with the same excuse for every one of their ‘donations’ which they “declare” or sign as anonymous.

    • ianmac 6.1
      5 June 2014 at 9:38 am

      There is apparently a difference between signing a Delaration and say a contract or an insurance agreement etc. If I don’t declare something when taking up an insurance policy then this behaves differently from the Donation signing. So I am told.

    • weka 6.2
      5 June 2014 at 9:45 am

      “If he is acquitted because “he did not read what he was signing”, then EVERY politician can get away with the same excuse for every one of their ‘donations’ which they “declare” or sign as anonymous.”

      Irrespective of what the judge decides today, I think that one of the consequences is that NO politician will ever be able to use this defense again. After Banks you can’t argue that you didn’t realise there were issues with not reading things properly.

    • travellerev 6.3
      5 June 2014 at 10:33 am

      Simon Bridges got away with the future destruction of one of the biggest nature reserves in NZ because he said he didn’t know it was a park when he signed it away. So yeah they already use that argument to great success!

      • McFlock 6.3.1
        5 June 2014 at 12:41 pm

        General incompetence is a time-honoured excuse for doing something shitty. Evereybody misses something, sometime. But Banks has hopefully pushed it so far that it fails to work.

        Think about someone wanting to avoid a household chore, like doing the dishes. If they do a shoddy job, maybe crack a cheap plate, in future they get given another job they find less annoying.

        Banks, on the other hand, has done the equivalent of dropping the cups and plates on the floor, one by one, while looking his flatmate dead in the eye and then saying “oops” in a sarcastic tone.

  7. Lez Howard 7
    5 June 2014 at 9:31 am

    Banks will sleaze out scott free But I bet hes been to to the Dunny a few times this morning

  8. nadis 8
    5 June 2014 at 10:00 am

    Looking for a positive here……

    At least Banks couldn’t be bought by DotCom. The whole reason this came to trial is because DotCom spat the dummy when he thought a politician he had paid for refused to deliver.

    Lesson there for all politicians who deal with Dotcom.

    • Clemgeopin 8.1
      5 June 2014 at 10:15 am

      Not quite.

      Dot com asked Banks who he mistakenly considered a ‘friend’ to help him secure a mattress while in prison as he was having backache. (I remember reading that KDC was treated shabbily in prison, being deprived for toilet facility etc). I think Banks refused to help because of political reasons and cowardice.

      • nadis 8.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:41 am

        Hmmmmm – that’s a very wholesome spin to put on it.

        The whole concept of being in remand prison and asking an MP to do things outside the prison rules? Right. I’m seeing sackable offence for a cabinet minister. Remember Williamson calling the police?

        For the record – I think Banks will likely be found not guilty on this, mostly because it can’t be proven. I think he probably did break the spirit of the law as every politician does, but I don’t believer the judge will be able to find him guilty. Especially as almost all the witnesses presented by the Crown have been proven to be unreliable when declaring such things as Banks and his wife being at the mansion, who was at the meetings, where the checks were banked etc. I’m no fan of Banks, but the orchestrated nature of the evidence, much of which is now demonstrably false looks like a fit up by DotCom.

        The one positive you can say now about DotComs dealings with the IP and Mana is there can be no surprises about what he wants. At least we now have full transparency on his motives, and who he thinks he has bought and paid for.

        • idlegus 8.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 4:54 pm

          lol, maybe ppl would like you if you werent such an apologist for banks. & the judge said the dotcom was a reliable witness.

        • Murray Olsen 8.1.1.2
          6 June 2014 at 1:56 am

          Which prison rules would it be against to help someone with a bad back get hold of something that would help relieve them of chronic pain, and at no expense to the prison? I think you’re just making that one up.

    • Tracey 8.2
      5 June 2014 at 10:37 am

      did banks vote for or against the gift to skycity when he was in cabinet.

      Williamson wanted to help someone not even a constituent and still doesnt know what he did wrong, collins doesnt know what williamson did wrong either. You could explain it to them

      • ghostwhowalksnz 8.2.1
        5 June 2014 at 11:49 am

        Banks has not been a Cabinet Minister under Key. He was ‘outside’ Cabinet so couldnt vote on any deal for Sky City

    • ghostwhowalksnz 8.3
      5 June 2014 at 11:07 am

      Not so.

      Dotcom was renting the Coatesville Mansion and got Banks to lobby Williamson over being allowed to buy the land

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

      “John Banks has admitted calling Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson to lobby for internet tycoon Kim Dotcom, but says he didn’t do anything wrong.”

      “Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson this morning confirmed Banks had called him in mid 2011 on behalf of Dotcom, who was applying through the Overseas Investment Office to buy his Coatesville mansion.”

      You should really try getting your facts from places other than Whaleoil

  9. Puckish Rogue 9
    5 June 2014 at 10:19 am

    He’ll be found not guilty because hes not guilty and there’ll be a huge serve against KDC and the left will end up with egg on their faces (again)

    At least thats my prediction based on the evidence thats come to light, ie KDC, his wifes and the lawyers differing views on what happened

    All this was is KDC trying to get revenge on John Banks because JB wouldn’t toe the KDC line but at least now KDCs found a more compliant and subservient political outlet

    • Lanthanide 9.1
      5 June 2014 at 10:23 am

      I found the evidence in Banks’ defense that the media reported to be pretty convincing, at least enough for reasonable doubt.

      Which is why above I think the underlying argument still boils down to “you should not sign things you haven’t read”, but that doesn’t appear to have any legal teeth in this instance. It basically means that signing your name on a piece of paper is meaningless.

      • Crashcart 9.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:47 am

        I agree that he will probably be found not guilty as no one can prove that he read teh document before signing.

        I doubt very much though that it will look overly bad for anyone other than banks. yes there will be MSM reports about the hit to Dot Com but in the end Banks looks like a complete incompitent who can’t even read a document before he signs it as being true.

        • weka 9.1.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 12:04 pm

          “but in the end Banks looks like a complete incompitent who can’t even read a document before he signs it as being true.”

          Or he looks like a corrupt politician who evaded a criminal conviction because of technical reasons. He might be found not guilty, but he can’t be found innocent.

          • Tracey 9.1.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 1:56 pm

            And he will tell us it proves he is honest, and his friends… Jenny, michelle, ian, john all have their bizarre personal definition of honest upheld.

      • ianmac 9.1.2
        5 June 2014 at 10:49 am

        Just some documents Lanthanide. Signing an Avadavit would be pretty binding as would your will. A Declaration is different somehow – around the “knowingly” I think.

        • Lanthanide 9.1.2.1
          5 June 2014 at 11:33 am

          Which doesn’t make sense. If signing a piece of paper doesn’t mean you’ve read it and understand / approve it’s content, what is the point of signing it?

          • veutoviper 9.1.2.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 1:41 pm

            The charges were laid under section 112D(a) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.

            Section 112D provides:

            112D Filing a false return of electoral donations and expenses
            A candidate who files a return under section 112A that is false in any material particular commits an offence and is liable on conviction—

            (a) to a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years, or a fine not exceeding $10,000, if he or she filed the return knowing it to be false in any material particularor

            (b) to a fine not exceeding $5,000 in any other case, unless the candidate proves that—

            (i) he or she had no intention to misstate or conceal the facts; and

            (ii) he or she took all reasonable steps in the circumstances to ensure the information in the return was accurate.

            As I understand it, the decision depends upon whether the judge decides – beyond reasonable doubt – that Banks KNEW that the return was false.

            The wording of 112D (a) differentiates the filing of these returns from the usual legal provisions applicable to other types of signed documents – contracts, insurance claims etc – and general law where ignorance is no defence. It allows an ‘out’ on the basis of a technicality – being the provision “knowing it to be false …”.

            • Tracey 9.1.2.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 1:59 pm

              has to be relying on b i doesnt he?

              Lanth, that very fact makes a mockery of the provision, and shows what happens when people who have to sign them, make the law governing those forms. Huge loopholes.

              • veutoviper …
                5 June 2014 at 2:18 pm

                The case was taken under s112D(a) – and my understanding is that s112D(b) does not apply as a charge under (b) have needed to have been filed within six months of the filing of the return. Hence the police not laying charges under that section.

                But as you say, either way – the wording of (a) and the six month deadline for (b) – provide big loopholes which must be closed regardless of which way the Banks’ decision goes.

            • Ed 9.1.2.1.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 2:14 pm

              Banks has carefully put together a set of procedures to take advantage of that wording and claim not to “know” that a return may be false. We will know very soon if he is successful – in pointing out that he follows the National party principle that the letter of the law is all that matters – and the spirit of the law is irrelevant.

    • veutoviper 9.2
      5 June 2014 at 10:39 am

      So how do you ‘explain’ the Sky City cheque that was handed to Banks in person at a short meeting expressly for that purpose – and the evidence presented by Sky City managers at the trial about that meeting and the cheque, and the fact that they did not intend the donation to be anonymous?

      • nadis 9.2.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:49 am

        Sadly, politicians do this all the time. Watch most of them run a mile when a check book is taken out, thats when the party hacks come in and do their job.

        Legally Banks thought as long as he didnt look at the check he would be able to deny he knew it was there. Kind of like a political Schrodinger’s cat. “In the envelope there is both a check from SkyCity and not a check from SkyCity. Only when the ACT office lady opens the envelope will the true state of the check/not check be revealed.”

        I guarantee that every experienced politician from all parties is well briefed on quantum political donation theory.

        To be fair to Banks and DotCom, they’re only trying to imitate the Master of this type of behavior.
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/vote-08/news/698687/Tell-those-bastards-I-need-a-helicopter

    • toad 9.3
      5 June 2014 at 10:39 am

      Four years down the track, different people’s recollections of the details of an event are always going to differ. That they do in this case does not necessarily detract from the witnesses credibility re the Dotcom donation.

      That said, I think Banks is on stronger ground on that one than the SkyCity one where Banks personally received from Morrison the cheque in an envelope and then appeared to orchestrate a willful blindness as to what the envelope actually contained.

      • Tracey 9.3.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:44 am

        and mrs banks was right in line with her husbands account, adding that she thought they were all talk and wouldnt donate… But her judgment of people hasnt been too flash has it

        • ghostwhowalksnz 9.3.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 11:12 am

          The facts that arent in dispute, are that Dotcom did contribute two separate amounts ( 2x $25000) to Banks.

          So her memory doesnt matter, the details of two amounts fits Dotcoms account

          • Lanthanide 9.3.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 11:39 am

            Yeah, but Dotcom’s credibility is undermined by his apparent vendetta about being out to get Banks. So he could be “making it all up”.

            Personally I don’t see how it’s possible to have two witnesses in court giving diametrically opposite testimony, both swearing to tell the truth and neither being charged with perjury. I guess the rationale comes down to “their version of events”.

            • Richard Christie 9.3.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 1:06 pm

              <i.Dotcom’s credibility is undermined by his apparent vendetta about being out to get Banks. So he could be “making it all up”.

              Equally, he could not be making it all up for same reasons.

              1) His “vendetta” has no bearing on the truth or otherwise of the charges.
              2) Many a truth has been uncovered by strong motive to disclose. No matter if motive is honorable or not.

              Any good juror will look to the facts.

          • Tracey 9.3.1.1.2
            5 June 2014 at 2:02 pm

            i was commenting on her judgment less than her memory. But with intention, mens rea, then the credibility of those seeking to back banks version is important.

      • Draco T Bastard 9.3.2
        5 June 2014 at 2:04 pm

        Four years down the track, different people’s recollections of the details of an event are always going to differ.

        Even if it was immediately after accounts would still differ. I recall an incident (a bag snatch) in a mall many years ago. The robber was apprehended fairly quickly and then the cops went about getting witnesses reports. Not a single witness account matched what actually happened when they were compared to the malls video of it. Some were closer than others but that was about it.

        It’s when all the peoples stories match perfectly that red flags get raised.

    • Tracey 9.4
      5 June 2014 at 10:42 am

      so, you were calling for williamsons resignation immediately, and collins? Both of whom helped out donors who werent even constituents

      • srylands 9.4.1
        5 June 2014 at 10:51 am

        Your comment shows how you base your conclusions on muddled thinking and false premises. You are guilty of two.

        Hon Williamson resigned because he interfered with a police case. Nothing to do with “donations”.
        Hon Collins has done nothing improper at all.

        Banks is a twit who wrecked the ACT Party. But that is not a crime. The court can decide whether he is guilty. I have no informed view. Neither do you.

        • Crashcart 9.4.1.1
          5 June 2014 at 10:59 am

          The nothing to do with donations line is up for debate. The guy wasnt one of Williamsons friends or constituents. Basically hie donation gave him the confidence to approach Williamson to ask for help. The fact that Williamson then followed it up is damming.

          Collin’s nothing improper at all? I guess that is why she was on her last warning from the PM after miss leading the media over the stopping on the way to the airport. She hasn’t been hung yet but she is a hell of a long way from “Nothing improper”.

          • Tracey 9.4.1.1.1
            5 June 2014 at 11:10 am

            for slylands “wrong” equals a criminal offense.

            He sees no place for morality, hence his constant refrain of

            Market says yes

            • Populuxe1 9.4.1.1.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 7:49 pm

              Pretty much. Just as it isn’t “wrong” for the Internet Party to piggyback in on Mana’s coattails. Potayto, Potahto.

        • Tracey 9.4.1.2
          5 June 2014 at 11:04 am

          no, your comments show how you twist facts to suit your world view.

          Puckish suggests that banks wouldnt do what kdc wanted him to do in return for cash…

          Williamson intefered in a police case because the defendant was a donor not even a constituent
          The minister of justice did pr for a dairy company because her husband works for that company as a director and its owner donates to the nats

          That conclusion is more sustainable than the assertion kdm is buying a block to his extradition, not least because williamson and colluns have already done wrong.

          That you see wrong as equal to criminally liable and nothing else

          • Puckish Rogue 9.4.1.2.1
            5 June 2014 at 12:37 pm

            I think the reason KDC is bankrolling his puppets (the internet party and mana party) is because he Is trying to stop his extradition from happening (its not looking good for KDC in the court documents) and to a lesser degree get revenge on John Key

            Why do you think hes bankrolling the party?

            • Crashcart 9.4.1.2.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 1:23 pm

              I agree that he is bank rolling IMP to try and see John Key taken down. The fact is unless he bank rolls Labour he won’t be able to prevent his extradition being that it is the minister who makes the final decision.

              So in reality there is nothing wrong with the first because any of the numerous donars to the National and ACT parties could be said to be doing it to keep DC out of parliment. And the second means that there is no issue with the extradition.

              So tell us again what you are all indignant about.

            • Tracey 9.4.1.2.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 1:31 pm

              Why do you think mr liu donated so much to the national party, what did he want in return? Why do you think mr shu gave money to spend over two hours one on one with the prime minister, and then more money from his company?

              Do you object to the colin craig and alan gibbs parties too? I understand you think mr dotcom has broken a us law and should be extradicted, but that decision hasnt been made yet. And if it is a minister for justice will have to override that.

            • Tracey 9.4.1.2.1.3
              5 June 2014 at 1:34 pm

              why do you think he was bankrolling banks in 2010?

        • framu 9.4.1.3
          5 June 2014 at 12:28 pm

          “Hon Williamson resigned because he interfered with a police case. Nothing to do with “donations”. – thats debateable
          Hon Collins has done nothing improper at all.” – thats just your opinion

          now, lets put aside the fact your siding with, and supporting behaviour thats is expressly forbidden by the cabinet manual, on both counts, and examine exactly how your opinon makes someone else factually wrong

          ” I have no informed view.”
          yep

          • srylands 9.4.1.3.1
            5 June 2014 at 1:38 pm

            No it is not my opinion – it is fact. Hon Collins has done nothing wrong. At all. You have no evidence to the contrary.

            You and your fellow travellers are simply engaging in the smear tactics beloved of totalaitarian regimes. You would be at home in Zimbabwe. The existence of people with your mindset is exactly what keeps regimes like Zimbabwe afloat. Say something 1,000 times and it becomes correct.

            Luckily New Zealanders see through you and your kind. The issue is dead. The good news is that the flawed attack on Hon Collins is simply likely to lead to a crushing victory for National and a National Government through to 2020.

            Well done. Your nastiness and bile and xenophobia reflect a way of thinking that is on the wrong side of history. Which is what you will become – history.

            • Tracey 9.4.1.3.1.1
              5 June 2014 at 2:09 pm

              Still struggling to distinguish between not breaking the law and wrong I see.

              Collins fell below the cabinet manual highest ethical behaviour” and her changing version of events supports this.

              An issue passing in the public mind is not the measure of right or wrong.

              Someone needs the barrier arm activated slylands.

            • Macro 9.4.1.3.1.2
              5 June 2014 at 2:10 pm

              “Hon Collins has done nothing wrong”

              Just keep on repeating that s***lands – and you never know it might come true.

              Your perception of what NZers think and what is reality are two different things – but then as you are not resident in this country I guess that’s understandable.

              “You have no evidence to the contrary.” !!!!!
              There is a raft of evidence to the fact that she willing went to Oravida (a company to which her husband is a director and having problems with importation of dairy products from NZ), requested briefings on the banning of NZ dairy products before flying to China, had lunch with a Chinese Border official, and miraculously just afterwards exports of NZ dairy products to Oravida resumed. No nothing to see here at all!
              You are aware, are you not, that the Cabinet Manual forbids the minister indulging in activities for personal gain whilst on official business?

            • Crashcart 9.4.1.3.1.3
              5 June 2014 at 2:13 pm

              Again if Hon Collins did nothing wrong why did the PM put her on final warning?There is no lie in this.
              Everything else as you say is unproven (to 100% at least) however at no stage has anyone lied when they have laid accusations against her. It just seems every time they are proven to be correct She and the PM come out and say “well yes that is what happened but we are OK with it”.
              Of course the moment somethign is said about the right it is nastiness. However when collins herself starts making attacks about peoples clothes or telling out right untruths about reporters that is just par of the course.

              Oh and I am still trying to work out how being upset with how a rich white women is behaving could be considered Xenophobic. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

            • Colonial Viper 9.4.1.3.1.4
              5 June 2014 at 2:15 pm

              You and your fellow travellers are simply engaging in the smear tactics beloved of totalaitarian regimes. You would be at home in Zimbabwe.

              You really are a silly little goose. Smear tactics are hallmarks of liberal democracies because smear tactics require a significant amount of free speech to conduct.

              In contrast, within a “totalitarian regime” you would simply be taken out the back and shot, or otherwise disappeared without charges or trace.

              BTW your Zimbabwe trope has been well overused can you pick another please, perhaps North Korea or Saudi Arabia might be more novel.

    • McFlock 9.5
      5 June 2014 at 2:35 pm

      Reality seems to have a liberal bias, PR.

      To quote Michael Caton, “suffer in ya jocks”

      • Puckish Rogue 9.5.1
        5 June 2014 at 3:07 pm

        Probably won’t be the last time I get a prediction wrong…

        Nevermind I still predict National will win the next election

  10. ghostwhowalksnz 10
    5 June 2014 at 10:59 am

    Before the trial Banks loudly claimed , ” nothing to fear , nothing to hide”

    Then during the court case he got his wife to testify, he got Jenny Gibbs to testify, he got Michelle Boag to testify.

    hes happy to hide behind the skirts of women he knows but too scared to to take the witness box himself.

    Some one else had to say ‘he glanced at the form before he signed it’ but Banks knew he would be lying if he said he didnt know the source of two of the donations , so he stayed away from the witness box

    • Tracey 10.1
      5 June 2014 at 11:12 am

      be fair, he got men in there too. Ian revell, former deputy speaker who pressured a police commissioner to try and get a fine dropped…

    • Murray Olsen 10.2
      6 June 2014 at 2:09 am

      Lawyers generally discourage defendants from giving evidence. Banks has such a huge ego, I’m surprised his lawyer managed to keep him out of the box.

  11. Tiger Mountain 11
    5 June 2014 at 11:33 am

    After reading the commenters above it would seem a nice moist paper towelette is being prepared as I type to flay Banksie’s wrist with.

    Though a not guilty or discharge won’t be a satisfying exit at least this is one tory tick less in future.

    • freedom 11.1
      5 June 2014 at 12:33 pm

      You never know Tiger, it might be one of those heavyily embossed triple ply monsters that are on the shelves these days. My studio will attest how those bad boys can take some serious punishment, so with the right preperation and a considered delivery, a mildly inconvenient welt might be possible.

      The real sentence though, as always, will be put on the public’s shoulders as Banks now steps out of the modicum of public accuntability that existed and he becomes another tumour hiding in the background, instead of an abcess that can be ocassionally be pierced.

  12. Pete 12
    5 June 2014 at 2:20 pm

    One News just tweeted: he’s guilty.

  13. ianmac 13
    5 June 2014 at 2:20 pm

    Result for Banks GUILTY

  15. veutoviper 15
    5 June 2014 at 2:21 pm

    RNZ – GUILTY!

    Judge is now giving his reasons. Big crowd in court, and gathering outside.

    • veutoviper 15.1
      5 June 2014 at 2:33 pm

      Strange – I seem to have changed my pseudonym to “Undefined”! Happened when I was trying to add the following.

      And just for S Rylands and the others who think that the Judith Collins issue is dead and buried, this on the Herald

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11268178

      What Judith Did In China
      For her office to comply with a request made on May 7 under the provisions of the Official Information Act, CaseLoad looks forward to receiving this week details of Justice Minister Judith Collins’ itinerary for her visit to China last October, plus copies of any speeches she made there and reports compiled on the outcome of the visit.
      The requested disclosure – made in the interests of the public transparency advocated by Miss Collins – may put to rest niggles over what she did there and with whom.

  16. appleboy 16
    5 June 2014 at 2:25 pm

    Awesome. Never thought it would happen but my god justice is served. RWNJ’s can all go puke in your pockets

  17. Draco T Bastard 17
    5 June 2014 at 2:32 pm

    Guilty

  18. veutoviper 18
    5 June 2014 at 2:40 pm

    LOL! John Armstrong must have had this written and ready to go the minute the decision came through. I have not yet read it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11268287

    Presumably Armstrong also had another variation ready to go if the decision was not guilty ….

  19. fisiani 19
    5 June 2014 at 2:41 pm

    Great news re Banks. Justice being seen to be done.
    Banks will be sentenced on August 1st.
    There will be no by-election due to the proximity to the election.
    John Key therefore has the right to say “Party Vote National and give us a majority so that we are not dependent on minor parties”
    I’m picking National 51%
    Labour 20%
    Greens 18%
    NZF 6 %
    Conservatives 4%
    ACT -1 or 2 MPs
    UF -1 MP
    Internet Mana 2 MP
    Maori Party 3 MP

    • Macro 19.1
      5 June 2014 at 2:47 pm

      You realise that your distribution constitutes a massive overhang of around 6 MPs?
      However your dreaming is simply that -wishful thinking on your part and completely devoid of reality – as is the case with all your other comments.

    • Kenny Smith 19.2
      5 June 2014 at 2:48 pm

      Agree this is great news for National, they are so close to 50% so people
      who were going to vote for act, will now be targeted to vote national.

  20. Puckish Rogue 20
    5 June 2014 at 3:04 pm

    Well I got that completely wrong

    • Pasupial 20.1
      5 June 2014 at 3:24 pm

      Is that supposed to be a surprise?

      Point to a single instance where your PR spin has been correct about anything.

      • Puckish Rogue 20.1.1
        5 June 2014 at 4:11 pm

        We’ll have to wait until the next election when John Key is returned to power

  21. ianmac 21
    5 June 2014 at 3:33 pm

    John Key acts according to a pragmatic belief garnered by what the polls say and what he thinks will not upset the voters too much. Slippery and often hypocritical. Often dishonest.
    Banks generally stuck to his Right Wing principles even though some of us hated him for his stances.
    Now that Banks has gone perhaps he deserves some respect for his being true to his beliefs far more so than Key?

  22. Mike the Savage One 22
    5 June 2014 at 8:27 pm

    Amnesia, he claimed, kind of, he got done:

    Banksie is a done one, he is GUILTY of fraud, and while he can appeal, he is looking very ugly and hypocritical now.

    Shame on you, Mr Banks, to try and continue to claim your innocence, the many media comments you made a long time ago have been totally unconvincing.

    Now what about John Key and some of his cabinet, it is time we get them convicted, I suggest.

Links to post