John Banks; Conviction Quashed

Written By: - Date published: 12:14 pm, May 19th, 2015 - 196 comments
Categories: Abuse of power, accountability, democracy under attack, john banks, Politics - Tags: , ,

Disgraced former National MP, ACT leader and Auckland Mayor John Banks has had his appeal against conviction for electoral fraud upheld and his conviction quashed. He has been formally acquitted and there will be no second trial.

The Court of Appeal has accepted that Kim Dotcom changed his evidence once affidavits from American witnesses contradicted his claims about the date and circumstances of the lunch at which it was alleged that Banks took two $25k cheques in order to circumvent electoral law. Kim ‘two lunches’ Dotcom’s credibility has dropped even further, possibly harming his ongoing attempt to avoid deportation to the States to face charges there.

Banks is now free to run for the Auckland mayoralty next year, presumably against Labour’s Phil Goff.

196 comments on “John Banks; Conviction Quashed”

  1. alwyn 1

    Is there any chance that DotCom will be charged with perjury?
    Seems appropriate to me.

    • Clemgeopin 1.1

      Leaving aside the court verdict, do you personally and honestly believe that John Banks is not guilty?

      And talking about ‘appropriate’, did the Parnell pony-tail pulling behaviour by the other John, our esteemed Prime Minister, also seem appropriate to you?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2

      Does it? The Solicitor General’s remarks – quoted below by Penny Bright – show just how twisted and prejudiced your opinion is.

      But we already knew that.

      • alwyn 1.2.1

        “The Solicitor General’s remarks – quoted below by Penny Bright – show just how twisted and prejudiced your opinion is. ”

        Really? You mean that the Solicitor General is squeaky clean?
        I’m not surprised that he is trying to defend himself. After all isn’t he the man responsible for what led to the Court of Appeal saying’
        “”We hold rather that the Crown could not both withhold the memorandum and resist the appeal in the manner that it did. The effect was to mislead the Court.”

        He has just been given a caning by a clearly very unhappy Court who have been mislead by this man and his minions.
        I think that after a slapping down like this he really ought to be considering whether he can stay in the job. Has any other person in this job been admonished quite so harshly?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1

          No, I’m saying that you really ought to inform yourself before running your mouth.

          Her evidence supported the defence case, which was that Mr Banks and Mr Dotcom had held a private and quite different discussion about donations in a conservatory or loggia off the dining room.

          The Court of Appeal.

          Oops.

          • alwyn 1.2.1.1.1

            Where exactly does that statement, that you are giving as a direct quotation, come from?
            Then I can find out who “she” is and when this was, if at all, said.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.2.1.1.1.1

              Paragraph 13 of the judgement. You haven’t read the judgement?

              That was obvious.

              • alwyn

                But this doesn’t say, and give any information about, what the discussion may have been.
                If Banks had asked DotCom for a donation, in private, and been told that DotCom would give something then there is no way of saying that Banks knew who had actually given anything and could have honestly signed any return as saying that they were anonymous.
                The argument that he knew depended on Kim’s little helpers claiming that they were present for the meeting and that cheques were handed over.
                They weren’t present if there were such a private meeting and the only people who could possibly comment on what happened there were Banks and DotCom. DotCom has clearly been proved to be a liar, or if that is too strong for your constitution, an “unreliable witness”

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  In fact, the C of A’s judgement is that the Crown made an “error of process”.

                  Human memory being what it is, witness reliability is a myth, I am reliably informed by my legal chums.

                  What is not in doubt is that the conversation occurred, that two cheques were made out, and that Banks subsequently characterised them as anonymous donations when, by his own statements to the Court, he knew damn well who they were from.

                  One thing is clear: that’s ok with you. Let’s agree to disagree.

                  • Andrew Carrot

                    Actually, the CoA determined that there had been a miscarriage of justice. The “error of process” that you refer to was sufficiently overt to allow the CoA to conclude that there had been a miscarriage. This is a very serious determination by the court.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      John Banks to 3News, 27th April 2012: “Well I met with them, I know them, but I can’t recall discussing money with them.”

                      John Banks’ defence in court: ‘that discussion didn’t take place at the dinner table’.

                      Your candidate for mayor of Auckland. Will you wipe him off your shoe or tread him all over the carpet?

                    • alwyn

                      You are right of course. They did describe it as a “miscarriage of justice” didn’t they.
                      Quite a rare thing that. It was what was said about the Arthur Allan Thomas Case, and about David Dougherty and as probable about David Bain.
                      Quite damning about the senior lawyers involved isn’t it.

                • dukeofurl

                  Banks was proved a liar in a previous court case in 2003.

                  The judge said his sworn affidavit didnt match his testimony.

                  So who has been ‘proven a liar previously’ ?

    • dukeofurl 1.3

      Read the original judgement.

      John Banks personally went out to solict his campaign donations and made them out as anonymous when he knew who they were. Thats an offence.

      The legal technicalities mean he has got away it. Doesnt mean he didnt do it.

  2. Clemgeopin 2

    Oh, how nice! Now we are blessed with not one, but TWO honest Johns! John Key and John Banks! Jesus wept!

  3. Old Mickey 3

    In breaking news – Penny Bright & Graham McCready are filing a public prosectuion against Kim DotCom for perjury.

  4. Detrie 4

    I don’t agree with J Banks policies and always thought him a self-serving egotist, like many politicians. But we always thought his heart was in the right place and he at least tried to do good work, be it in a somewhat misguided fashion. We’d never vote for the guy, but don’t have issue with him being in the next race against Phil Goff. Both appear honourable men, which is more than you can say for the incumbent.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1

      Yeah, the man who forgets helicopter rides and speeches at birthday parties is totally in the clear. No, wait, I’m glad his career has been so thoroughly tarnished: he’s a hatemonger who deserves every bit of it.

      • Tracey 4.1.1

        knew nothing about finances of hujlich when being paid as ED.

        he is not guilty but i dont want a mayor who signs stuff he doesnt read…. or one he takes the pay but is hands off.

    • dukeofurl 4.2

      Dont forget the other donation from Sky City.

      Banks met personally with the top management to ask for money ($25,000) and he walked out the door with the cheque in his pocket and then listed it as “anonymous”

      Unknown to Banks , Sky City listed the donation in its annual report- which is where all this saga began.

      Luckily for Banks , because the cheque was in his name, it was returned to Sky City and a new cheque was made out in ‘Team Banksy’.

      Purely because of this technicality Banks escaped conviction on this charge. The solicting of Dotcoms money was in a smiliar manner.

      The reality is Banks made false declarations on ALL of his so called anonymous donations.

      This case made the law clear, if you know who made the donation, you cant make it anonymous.

      You can see the panic in nationals donation to individual candidates, where in virtually all cases they had to use an intermediary , head office national party, to cover up who made most of the candidate donations

  5. Richard Christie 5

    Without doubt, people are lying.
    The question is who is lying?

    Personally I believe it to be those supporting the person caught holding two cheques rather than the person who for no imaginable reason chose to write two cheques, when one would have sufficed.

    • Bob 5.1

      So you believe the person who received a dodgy payment rather than the person that made a dodgy payment, and this is based on nothing other than political alliances, does that sum things up?

      I would rather the facts be played out in court and let a judge decide, but now we can’t even get that because the person that made a dodgy payment (the one you believe) ‘changed his story’ (which could be construed as lying, and would most definitely make Blip’s list if this was John Key we were talking about) when his affidavit was contradicted by other parties.
      This doesn’t mean the person that received the payment wasn’t a guilty party, but we may never find out the full story now because the person you believed, according to the courts, now shouldn’t be believed, but that doesn’t stop you believing them.

      Glad we cleared that up.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1

        You misread Richard’s comment. He says the supporters of the man holding two cheques are lying.

        • Richard Christie 5.1.1.1

          Thanks OAB, you read my comment correctly, however upon reflection I withdraw it. I cannot know what went on at each occasion under scrutiny.

          I do nevertheless believe the man left holding the two cheques to be the liar.

          Whether the conversation was at one dinner party or at another is largely immaterial to the substance of the charge, for somebody, at some stage, advised KDC to write two cheques instead of one to be paid into Mr John Banks’ campaign fund. No prizes for knowing from whence the instruction came.

          Banks has escaped on a technicality of process which has allowed him to avoid answering the serious substance of the allegations.

    • Tracey 5.2

      i suspect dotcom and banks are both liars.

  6. Colonial Rawshark 6

    I see the old school establishmentarians can’t resist putting the boot into Dotcom with snide remarks. At least Dotcom made a serious effort and investment to hold Banks to account. He deserves credit for that.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

      “Serious”? His diary fail has thrown this vile criminal hatemonger a lifeline.

      • alwyn 6.1.1

        ” this vile criminal hatemonger ”
        Is DotCom really that bad? I’ve never met him but perhaps some of you who are his mates could comment.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.1.1

          Let me make this perfectly clear so that even you can understand it: John Banks is a vile criminal hatemonger.

      • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.2

        Why fucking help the Left, after all, is the lesson Dotcom should take away from this court case debacle, the time and money he has put into it. They are an ungrateful bunch of losers.

        • te reo putake 6.1.2.1

          What’s it got to do with the left? The principle players in the court case, KDC, Banks and McCready, all seem to be various shades of right wing. His only assistance to the left appears to be putting a few of us on the payroll for a while, when it looked to be advantageous to his personal circumstances to do so. As far as I can see, his ‘help’ has destroyed one left party and hobbled two others. Do we really need that kind of assistance?

        • McFlock 6.1.2.2

          lol
          The only reason he put money into the left was because the money he gave to banks got him absolutely nothing.

          • Andrew Carrot 6.1.2.2.1

            So he attempted to buy the right, and failed, and then attempted to buy the left and succeeded. Oh dear.

            • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.2.2.1.1

              So he attempted to buy the right, and failed

              well, more precisely the Right took his money, made promises, and reneged.

              • Andrew Carrot

                I’m not sure what those promises would have been, given that it was a local government election. He pays candidates to get influence. And clearly the payments come with one expectation: get results or i’ll take you down. So when Banks didn’t get him released from Auckland Remand Centre (as if he could), he pulled out the threat/promise. Some call it bribery, others call it patronage.

              • Colville.

                Got a link to the promises Bank made and reneged on?

                Or you just made that bit up? yip thought so.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  If I help you in the the future it’s better no-one knows about your donation.
                  John Archibald Banks.

                  So no, not made up.

                  • Colville.

                    Link?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Google is your friend, although I do offer a Google search service at an exhorbitant fee which you can’t afford.

                    • Colville.

                      Well instead of spending my valuable time googling your imaginary quotation I made an apple pie.

                      [It’s not imaginary. However, it’s not directly a John Banks quote. It’s Kim Dotcom’s evidence in court about what Banks said to him at the time the cheques were signed and was clearly accepted by the court that convicted Banks as being reasonably accurate. Next time, please do use google first. Otherwise you end up wasting my valuable time. And that won’t end well. TRP]

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Willful ignorance is your friend.

                    • Colville.

                      I thought the apple pie was far more worthy of my time…

                      and still no one has put up a link to this most well known of quotes…

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Must you provide supporting evidence for dubious psychological studies of right wing “thought”?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      still no one has put up a link

                      I’m happy to paraphrase it for you:

                      Crown: Mr. Banks, you told Mr. Dotcom at the dinner table that “If I help you in the future it’s better no-one knows about your donation.”

                      Banks: I can’t remember meeting that man and in any case the conversation happened in the conservatory.*

                      *Remember when the lying trash you’re placing your faith in said he couldn’t remember meeting KDC, and then gave evidence in court that they’d discussed political donations? How we laughed at you.**

                      **I laughed at you. Other more charitable folk laughed at lamented your willful blindness and gutter ethics.

                  • Ron

                    Obviously the help did not extend to helping Dotcom get a decent mattress whilst in gaol.
                    In fact it did not even extend to help at all.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Obviously the public statements Mr. Banks made: that he could not remember discussing donations, were lies, as shown by the discrepancies between his media statements and evidence given under oath.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.2.2.1.2

              It’s the right wing overbite – pretending Mana is “The Left” – neuters their rhetoric every time.

              • McFlock

                alongside their questionable definitions of “succeeded”.
                Dotcom did for mana what Fox does to news presenters every day – you don’t direct them to change their tune for you, you just pay the ones who sing your tune.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  That being the case, I suppose the difference is that Fox provides value for money.

                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell

                    Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. Apple pie.

    • Bill 6.2

      The fact is that it was the Crown Prosecution that fucked up; not Kim Dotcom.

      “The Crown misled the Court of Appeal by failing to disclose a document to John Banks ahead of an appeal hearing, according to a new judgment.”

      Still, precious few will let the facts get in the way of reflexive self righteousness and of pointing fingers of condemnation towards that most favoured of bogey men.

      edit – and so, what may well be considered a political judgement sails under the radar …

      • dukeofurl 6.2.1

        Crown prosecutors do this sort of thing all the time.

        Look at Kim Dotcoms prosecution , littered with mistakes and unlawful actions.

        Court of Appeal has gone a long with a free pass to the Crown in all those instances.

      • Actually, both KDC and the prosecution fucked up. Dotcom ‘forgot’ about the second lunch until after Banks’ wife came up with the affidavits. The prosecution failed to alert the court and the defence of the change of KDC’s testimony. The initial fuckup was Dotcom’s and that was compounded by the prosecution’s mistake.

        • Bill 6.2.2.1

          The inverted commas suggest you don’t believe Kim Dotcom forgot or got confused. The central issue around the donations remains the same regardless. (ie – did it happen at this dinner or that dinner is a ‘who gives a fuck?’ piece of background…no-one denies the substantive issues around the donations.).

          Which then begs the question as to why everything’s been kicked into touch.

          • te reo putake 6.2.2.1.1

            Confused, Bill. As I understand it, KDC had one date in mind, then suggested another, then said there were two lunches, then finally reverted to the original date.

            • Bill 6.2.2.1.1.1

              And if whatever clarification from Kim Dotcom had been passed to the defence by the Crown last October, then everything would have proceeded in a normal legal fashion, yes?

              • No. I believe that the appeal court has indicated that if it had known of the retraction/change of date it might not have ordered the re-trial. That is, it may well have thrown the case out at that point.

                • Bill

                  heh – surely they’d have stated that to be the case (shonky witness evidence) if that was the case? That they throw up a technicality as an excuse to throw everything into touch suggests simply that any possible way out was going to be grasped.

                  And as McFlock comments, off below somewhere, Crown prosecution had to be shamed into taking the case in the first fucking place.

                  But hey, sit back and watch the next round of hate and ridicule being unleashed on the bogey man.

                  • They do state that to be the case, Bill. In the judgement, they find that if they’d known about the relevant facts at the time, they would not have ordered the retrial. So not just a technicality, but a finding about the substantial nature of the evidence.

                    It’s at the end of the judgement, which can be found here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11451091

                    • Bill

                      I’m just reading it as saying that since everyone was ‘settled’ on the discussion having taken place on the 5th when they ordered a retrial, then they couldn’t order a re-trial where the Crown were going to say the discussion took place on the 9th.

                      That’s nothing to do with dodgy evidence per se. More like a convenient ‘out’, opened wide and beckoned to by the Crown.

                    • Richard Christie

                      Retrials involving new scenarios are no barrier, ask Mark Lundy.

          • Robert M 6.2.2.1.2

            I think it unlikely that the American businessmen were anymore credible than Moana or Dot Com. Our lingo is not Dot Com’s first language and he clearly had little understanding of our politics or legal system.
            The glaring fact , is that Act needed the money and Act needed Banks. What a worthless illprincipled party

            • Andrew Carrot 6.2.2.1.2.1

              I believe this case is all about the funding of John Banks’ 2010 mayoralty campaign. I don’t think Banks was even a member of Act when this was all unfolding. He was still a Nat then.

              And where ‘Dotcom’s donation cheques are concerned, one witness who has been spared closer examination by the MSM is Dotcom’s accountant at the time, McCavanagh – the cheque writer and (according to him) the depositor. The guy was murdered by the defence in court; under cross-examination he admitted that everything he had said about the banking of The Cheques in Queenstown by him was a lie, as the cheques were actually deposited in a Westpac branch in Albany, which is quite a few miles and a couple of flights away from said holiday town. He too got the days of the meetings wrong, among other things. For some reason known only to His Honour, Wylie J seemed to regard McCavanagh’s testimony as reliable.

              • Tracey

                yup. and banks still signs declarations without reading them

                cos he doesnt take declarations at law seriously
                he wants to deny the contents later
                he is not intelligent

                not guilty of a crime but hardly the talents for mayor of auckland

                • Rodel

                  Trust dot com?…never
                  Trust John Banks?…Sure Can (not)
                  Two liars don’t make make a truth.

              • Tracey

                oh and the accntnt didn’t look gd in the original finding as i recall so did get scrutinised contrary to your claim.

    • dukeofurl 6.3

      The person who started the ball rolling was Mallard

      Sky City published its annual report listing a $15,000 donation to Banks which started Mallard going.
      KDC only got going after this was public.

  7. Penny Bright 7

    ‘Sensational’ Court of Appeal decision?

    More like bloody unbelievable!

    How did Kim Dotcom know to split his $50,000 donation into 2 x $25,000 donations?

    OSMOSIS?

    If John Banks knew the identity of electoral donor – Kim Dotcom – then Kim Dotcom’s donation(s) should NOT have been listed as ‘anonymous’ – end of story.

    John Banks should not have relied upon his Treasurer to compile the list of donors, when his Treasurer was NOT present at all meetings when donations were discussed or solicited.

    I’m with the Solicitor-General on this one!

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11440033

    ” …The Solicitor-General, Mike Heron, QC, appeared by video-link and maintained that while Kim Dotcom’s evidence against Mr Banks has changed since the first trial, the story remained the same in one crucial respect.

    The Butler memorandum did not change the key plank of the false electoral charge, said Mr Heron.

    “Dotcom maintains there was a conversation with Banks in his house about donations. There is no fundamental change about whether there was a conversation. Mr Banks himself accepts that.

    “Mr Banks knew that these donations had been made. He knew who the donor was. Whether there was one lunch or two, cannot totally undermine that,” said Mr Heron.

    This was backed by the corroborating evidence that the two cheques were made out for $25,000 each.

    Mr Heron said he was “not defending Mr Dotcom’s credibility for one moment” but a judge could rely on parts of his evidence and dismiss others, as Justice Edwin Wylie did when he convicted Mr Banks.

    Mr Heron said there was also an issue around whether the Butler memorandum needed to be disclosed to the defence and, in any case, the material did not change the key tenet of Dotcom’s evidence.

    ….”

    In my opinion, there should have been a retrial.

    Penny Bright

    http://www.pennybright4mayor.org.nz

    • Dave_1924 7.1

      Yeah Penny, you know the law soooo much better than 3 Judges on the bench of NZ’s ultimate court of law, outside parliament. Brilliant. I take it you won’t be apologising then ….

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1

        Mr. Heron’s remarks show that for once, Ms. Bright has nothing to apologise for.

        • Dave_1924 7.1.1.1

          Mr Heron’s remarks? The counsel for the prosecution…….. Hmmmm yeah right. Weighed and founded wanting by three judges of the NZ Supreme Court…

          Banks and his campaign team were dumb filing as they did. But just because Banks wouldn’t be bought and intervene to help KDC when he was in jail, doesn’t make him a criminal and corrupt.

          But you know OAB – the playbook has been set and the endless left smears right, right smears left will continue ad nauseam . And the average punter gets no benefit to their life from all these super smart people running around in circles of small time politic bs…

          • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.1.1.1

            😆

            You really ought to read what they said if you’re going to pretend to know all about it.

            We are satisfied that there has been a serious error of process. It is, we accept, attributable to an error of judgment rather than misconduct.

            Getting off on a technicality means you’re in the clear on Wingnut.

            • Dave_1924 7.1.1.1.1.1

              “Getting off on a technicality means you’re in the clear on Wingnut.”

              ?? What does that even mean? Why resort to the old you don’t agree with me you’re a wingnut/from wingnut blah blah personal attack bs OAB?

              An accusation of KNOWINGLY filling in an incorrect electoral return was made against Banks. It relied on KDC and his cohorts testimony. That testimony has been shown to be all over the place in terms of who was where, when and what was discussed. The key thing of knowingly asking for donations to be made anonymously has not been proven

              Banks has been acquitted…..

              The error of judgement comment above is all about the legal fraternity not coming down hard on its own. Heron and his office “made an error judgment” in not sharing evidence with the defence and the court. yeah right…. In my opinion that is very close to saying misconduct but we will let you walk right now….

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                “All over the place”

                In fact, in part, Banks’ defence is that he had a conversation with Dotcom about donations, so that salient detail is not in doubt.

                Perhaps it’s ok with you if politicians solicit their own donations. If so, then Cabinet Club says you’re probably a National Party enabler voter.

          • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.2

            Dont forget the Skycity donation, which was the place it all started ( KDC only chimed in after it become public).

            It too was a technicality that go tBanks off ( they had to re-issue the cheque)

            he walked out of the building with the cheque is his pocket, for gods sake.

            And then tried to claim ( but not in the witness box) amnesia when it was time to sign the declaration of his donations.

            Who is the biggest liar here ?

            • Dave_1924 7.1.1.1.2.1

              Duke… not going to disagree with you. Politicians using trusts to hide identities of donors and incorrectly filling in electoral forms is just rubbish in my view. But Banks is not alone in any of that type of behaviour

              I’d like to see the Police grow some nads’ and actually hammer politicians and their staff for the numerous incidents of breaking electoral law that occur. Incorrect returns, tweeting political messages on election day and all the rest of the dodgy behaviour and end around behaviours.

              • One Anonymous Bloke

                grow some nads

                Too funny: you think they’re too afraid to lay charges.

              • Draco T Bastard

                But Banks is not alone in any of that type of behaviour

                Ah, the old RWNJ defense of But THEY did it toooooo

                And, yes, more politicians should be behind bars at this moment in time.

          • dukeofurl 7.1.1.1.3

            And the Sky City cheque ?

            This was the cheque which revealed Banks lies in his donation declaration, KDC only piped up after this was made public

      • Chris 7.1.2

        Given the state of our current Court of Appeal it’s not surprising at all.

      • the pigman 7.1.3

        Oh Dave, still the same old wingnut.

        Never afraid to let facts get in the way. The Court of Appeal is not New Zealand’s ultimate court of law. That would be the Supreme Court.

        Now bye bye, ta ta, I’d go back to another alias while the going is good, commenters who persistently attempt to mislead and derail tend to be amenable to the ban hammer.

    • Andrew 7.2

      How ironic your surname is Penny!

      It beats me how the Left tethered their entire election campaign on this obviously dodgy foreigner with previous convictions, expulsions from other countries and running an internet scam which was bound to come unstuck.

      You are judged by the friends you keep… and in this instance the electorate did the judging.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.2.1

        So tethered, in fact, that Kelvin Davis won TTT.

        No, wait, this just in: your feeble pretence that the Mana party is the entire Labour movement marks you as bewildered or mendacious.

        Which is it?

      • Tracey 7.2.2

        now you are just being silly. like someone who claims they have the nouse to run a city but signs declarations without reading them. takes large ED fees to run a finance company but knows nothing of the finances.

      • In Vino 7.2.3

        Well Andrew, please let us know if Andrew is your forename or surname. I think you will find that Penny’s surname is Bright. And please stop exaggerating. It is most unconvincing. ‘Their entire election campaign’ ??

    • Cancerman 7.3

      If I remember correctly you were in breach of electoral law by advertising on the day. I believe I saw your posters up long past the allowed date.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 7.3.1

        Opportunity missed to lay a complaint if you ask me. Ms. Bright’s flailing scattershot accusations of corruption would make it well deserved.

    • pat 7.4

      I agree with you Penny, the mere fact that 2 cheques for $25 grand each,
      shows there must have been a conversation,requesting two cheques of $25,
      grand each. Justice has not been served here.

  8. Redball 8

    The judgment makes for a very interesting read. KDC claims that there were two meals BUT accepts that Banks may not even have been present when the cheques were written out. The two lunch theory has already been dis-proven by many people. I think that there are so many variations to his story that perjury must be on the cards.

    • Ron 8.1

      If you are suggesting that people should be prosecuted for having a faulty memory then can we start with the Prime Minister he sure does have a strange memory

      perjury must be on the cards.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2

      What is not in dispute is that the candidate, by his own sworn statements, was present when the donations were discussed, despite his public denials.

      He then went on to pretend that the donations were anonymous. That’s why he was found guilty.

      Scrape him off your shoe before you come inside, please.

  9. Mr Nobody 9

    How exactly has Banks been disgraced?

    Its seems quite the opposite now that his name has been cleared.

    • He was disgraced by his own behaviour in taking two cheques, then further by trying to bluster/forget his way out of the situation. He may now be cleared of criminality, but his actions at the time were still disgraceful. Being charged at all is disgraceful, as is being convicted. Being forced to quit Parliament is disgraceful. He was also an ACT MP, which may actually be the most disgraceful thing of all.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1

        None of those things are as disgraceful as his vile right wing hate speech.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2

      Mr. Banks does not dispute the conversation about donations occurred. I’m sure you will find some way to justify that to yourself.

    • dukeofurl 9.3

      Dont forget the Sky City cheque.

  10. TheContrarian 10

    John Banks is a moron and completely inept. That said – looks like in this instance he may have actually been in the clear. And so sayth the law.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1

      “In the clear” made me think of Jimmy Carter.

      …I’ve read parts of the embarrassing transcripts, and I have seen the proud statement of a former attorney general, who protected his boss, and now brags on the fact that he tiptoed through a mine field and came out quote clean unquote. You know, I — I can’t — I can’t imagine somebody like Thomas Jefferson tiptoeing through a mine field on the technicalities of the law, and then bragging about being clean afterwards.

    • Tracey 10.2

      yup. but moronic and inept arent qualities i will vote for…

      btw the MP for Epsom sent out his newsletter yesterday. It seems no one told Goldsmith that ACT holds the seat… what a strange bunch these people are.

      • felix 10.2.1

        Is Goldsmith representing himself in print as “MP for Epsom”?

        Is he using a parliamentary crest?

        • Tracey 10.2.1.1

          no. cleverer than that. i will scan it and upload it…. but the inference is clear. he is very excited cos his street just got ultra fast broadbank.

    • lprent 10.3

      Nope. What he did was unlawful. He signed a form saying that several donations were anonymous when he damn well knew where they came from.

      However there is some dispute all the way from the police investigation to the court of appeal about if he performed the unlawful act of signing the form knowingly. That is the difference between not being charged and taken to court because of the timeouts and being being taken to court for a different offence.

      Either way he was certainly guilt of one of the offences, and admitted guilt to the lesser.

  11. b waghorn 11

    Just proves that if you’re rich enough to keep going to court at some stage you’ll get a judge that sides with you.

    • Enough is Enough 11.1

      Lets see how far Kim Dotcom get with that theory….

      • DoublePlusGood 11.1.1

        Ah, but USA has infinite money and power and influence, so they win.

      • Ron 11.1.2

        …and Dotcom does not have his money it is being kept by the Crown until such time as it can be handed over to Warner Bros

  12. Differentview 12

    Not worth my time to research the details, but didn’t the very same judicial body that quashed Banks’ conviction also say in the very same document that there *should* be a retrial?

    How nice it must be to have the power to shout out the one part you like and make headlines read as you want, and also forget the other!

    Next, the PR people who help run our lives will be dissecting out single words to delete from official statements instead of whole sentences. We can even predict they’ll be words like ‘not’, that can reverse original intent.

    • dukeofurl 12.1

      Its bizzare, the Court of Appeal has allowed affadavits from two Americans to overide the normal process of a retrial.

      Normally they would have to be in the witness box so their ‘memory’ can be tested.

      Remember in all of this , ‘nothing to hide’ John Archibald Banks has never testified from the witness box.

      It wasnt just Kim Dotcom in the witness box to verify his story, there was his wife, his security guard and another person who banked the two deposits.

      • repateet 12.1.1

        John Banks could not testify. Not for any nefarious reason of course. His memory could not be put to the test simply because he does not have one.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 12.1.1.1

          Its bizzare, the Court of Appeal has allowed affadavits from two Americans to overide the normal process of a retrial.

          No. It was the fact that the prosecution misled the Court.

          [25] …We hold rather that the Crown could not both withhold the memorandum and resist the appeal in the manner that it did. The effect was to mislead the Court.

          • Tracey 12.1.1.1.1

            yup. the prosecution misled the court. dotcom changed his affidavit when prompted by new evidence. contrary to what are suggesting i dont think that will give rise to perjury. the right will spin this to

            banksie is honest
            dotcom is a liar

            when the prosecution… representing the crown msled the court… not mt dotcom per se.

        • dukeofurl 12.1.1.2

          Lats time he was in High Court as a witness , back in 2003, the Justice Venning found Banks was untruthful then too !

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3250543

          The Judge said Banks sworn affidavit did not match his testimony in court.

          ie Liar liar.

          “”The statements about the fraudulently altered documents, the falsified reports, the secret bank accounts” were shown to be wrong, Justice Venning said.”

          And why would Banks make all these false allegations ?

          “He told the court last December: “The prospect that he [Mr Banks] would lose his executive salary and his car allowance enraged him.”

          That was the $39,000 annual lease on his Bentley Arnage

          MONEY ! When it comes to money , Banks will lie all the way

      • seeker 12.1.2

        duke of url

        “It wasn’t just Kim Dotcom in the witness box ……there was his wife, his security guard and another person who banked his deposits.”

        – or as Andrew Geddis so churlishly puts it in his latest post on Pundit “his cronies.” For crying out loud Andrew …… “cronies”!?…definitely showing bias.

        cannot link as on a borrowed tablet, but Andrew’s Pundit post,”If you want people to believe you are honest then it’s best not to….” is on the sidebars of this Standard page (47 mins. ago)

  13. saveNZ 13

    John Banks is guilty.

    Probably pretty hard to fight another trial when the government has seized the assets of Dot Com. I don’t know how you can be acquitted without a trial? New rules?

    There is no justice in this country. Look at Judith Collins also acquitted under extremely limited scope of investigation.

    The right need John Banks acquitted to keep selling off Auckland councils assets if he gets in as Mayor.

    How to make sure you get to sell off Auckland? You run two candidates who believe in the same thing.

    But at least Phil Goff is more honest.

  14. tinfoilhat 14

    So Banks has been acquitted.

    Hopefully what this episode has served to do is make all politicians far more vigilant and careful about their fund raising and recording of the same.

    I still believe we should have mandatory disclosure of all donations above $1000 in any electoral cycle.

    • dukeofurl 14.1

      Has occurred all ready, notice virtually all nationals candidate donations are listed as party HQ ?

      Its a way of covering their arses over who donated the money , as in most cases the MP knows who the money came from

    • Tracey 14.2

      i wld imagine they think they are more untouchable now

  15. SHG 15

    John Banks is guilty.

    He is in fact the complete opposite of guilty. He has been found to be not guilty.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1

      Keep telling yourself that. His defence was that the conversation about donations was held in another room.

      Read the judgement.

      • SHG 15.1.1

        Are you unclear on what the word “acquitted” means?

        • te reo putake 15.1.1.1

          It’s not the same as ‘not guilty’. Ask OJ Simpson.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.2

          Are you unclear on what the word ‘technicality’ means?

          How about “error of process”?

          How about “Mr Banks and Mr Dotcom had held a private and quite different discussion about donations in a conservatory or loggia off the dining room.”

          • SHG 15.1.1.2.1

            He has been acquitted and is thus innocent of the crime of electoral fraud. Throw as many toys out of your cot as you like, nothing can change the fact that he is not guilty.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 15.1.1.2.1.1

              No toys thrown here: just simply and calmly laying out the facts according to John Banks: he discussed the donations with Kim Dotcom then signed them off as anonymous, and you don’t have a problem with that.

              • SHG

                Oh, I think the whole election-campaign-donation system is rotten. Banks’s cheques, Cunliffe’s secret trust, all of it. But Banks has been found not guilty of electoral fraud. The End.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  “Charity” golf games, Cabinet Club.

                  You’re absolutely right: get money out of politics, and vote accordingly.

    • dukeofurl 15.2

      The court ordered a retrial, they then recalled that judgement and stopped the retrial for technical reasons.

      No one . No where has there been a verdict of not guilty.

      A verdict has a specific meaning.

      The CoA has got itself into a lot of trouble over this ruling. Misleading the court by the prosecution can now be grounds for voiding the verdict.

  16. Paul Campbell 16

    So when I write a cheque it has my name on it, did Banks somehow come down with some sort of magical blindness where you can only read the value of a cheque but not the rest of it? Or was it simple willful ignorance.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1

      As the Court of Appeal makes clear, Banks’ defence was that he discussed the donations in the other room, not at the dinner table. (Paragraph 13)

      • Paul Campbell 16.1.1

        Whether or not the colluded to have two cheques is not the point here if you get a cheque with someone’s name on it and you claim it is “anonymous” you are telling a lie

        • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.1

          Prosecution: You discussed the donations at the dinner table!
          Defence: That’s a damn lie! We went to another room first!

          😀

        • chwaga 16.1.1.2

          He did not get the cheques. They were made out and banked by the accountant and put into the election fund. Last time I looked at my bank statement it did not say who the banked cheque came from. So only his campaign manager saw the bank statements.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.1.1.2.1

            That must be why he was found guilty then let off on a procedural technicality, eh.

    • Colville. 16.2

      Incredible isnt it?
      You can have your name on the cheque and yet it is anonymous.

      Which is why Len Brown used a blind trust to launder his donations. So he could shake hands, take the bribes and the only donation he disclosed was from his blind trust.

      Oh and that is what David Cunliffe did too for the leadership contest for the Labour party.

      But in both cases it was totally legal.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1

        If you say so.

        In Banks’ case, by his own testimony, he solicited the donation personally, then pretended the source was anonymous. Then he got off on a technicality.

        The obvious solution to these examples and Cabinet Club is to get money out of politics.

        • Colville. 16.2.1.1

          Yip just the same as Len Brown and David Cunliffe did. The same as every politician does.

          Money isnt a problem at all, it just needs to be disclosed. Every cent of it and instantly upon receipt.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1.1.1

            Keep telling yourself that.

          • Paul Campbell 16.2.1.1.2

            While I agree every dollar should be disclosed – and promptly, I do think money is a problem.

            I think of politics as a “marketplace of ideas” – an idea shouldn’t be better or worse just because it has more money behind it, that just corrupts the basic underlying fabric of the forum where you’re trying to determine the fitness of ideas.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 16.2.1.1.2.1

              How do you disclose dollars that are delivered in the form of lucrative business opportunities after you’ve left office, as per the current National Party procedure for bribery?

              • Paul Campbell

                you make it illegal and expose those who do it – make it a legal requirement for those who receive ministerial warrants that they not work within the sectors they regulate for 10 years after leaving parliament – you get paid well for being a minister and get a goodly sum when you leave it shouldn’t be any great hardship to live on a minister’s pension.

                Just because there’s one loophole is not a reason to close all the others

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  Nah the intent is good but it would never work in practice. So a 60 year old lawyer who is Minister of Justice can’t work for a law firm ever again? So a 60 year old doctor who is Minister of Health can’t work for a hospital ever again?

                  • Ten years is a bit long. In the UK, there is a stand down, but I think it only applies in certain ministries and only for a couple of years. Defence is one of them, as I recall. But as most ascendant MP’s have second jobs as consultants or non exec board members in the industries they eventually have ministerial control over, the whole thing is a charade.

  17. McFlock 17

    So the crown prosecutors who didn’t want to take the case in the first place (until McCready demonstrated they were incompetent in making that decision) withheld evidence and thereby scuppered the case.

    So – who gets fired?

    • Colonial Rawshark 17.1

      More like who gets promoted.

    • Tracey 17.2

      went thru my mind too mcflock… no one will get fired if it were a plan. disbarred if true. but wont be struck off… perhaps they didnt read the documents when they declared to follow rules on admittance to the bar, so are not bound by them

      • McFlock 17.2.1

        disbarred?
        Sure they won’t call a “brain fade” and promise that they’re weally weally sorry about the temp who no longer works there and just get a slap on the hand?

  18. Puckish Rogue 18

    Well it took long enough but the correct decision has been made, its a shame his reputation had to suffer as much as it did but now at last he can move on with his life

    • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1

      You’re partly right: getting off on a technicality would tarnish a good reputation.

      • Puckish Rogue 18.1.1

        John Banks was aquitted so his reputation is restored and the left were shown to be, again, hopelessly naive when it comes to John Key

        I mean did the left really think you could trust someone like Dot Con? Of course you did…

        • One Anonymous Bloke 18.1.1.1

          John Banks’ defence was that he didn’t discuss the donations at the dinner table. It happened in another room. He got off on a technicality, and you are pretending his reputation hasn’t suffered.

          Not sure why, unless you’re trying to provide supporting evidence for the notion that right wingers are stupid and unethical.

        • repateet 18.1.1.2

          His reputation hasn’t changed. To repeat this: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3250543

          “Outlining Mr Banks’ evidence, and his change of heart regarding the Cooks, Justice Venning said the mayor’s sworn affidavit did not match up with his subsequent testimony in court.”

          His reputation in our house is that of a liar and charlatan. Now he’s jumping up and down crying as if his purity has been wrongly impugned. He expects his arrogance to be harnessed to ignorance. He is right.

          • Colonial Rawshark 18.1.1.2.1

            Puckish Rogue sets much lower standards for “reputation”, I must say.

        • Tracey 18.1.1.3

          i dont think you understand who prosecuted banks cos it wasnt the left.

    • Hateatea 18.2

      What reputation? Surely you jest! As long as moving on with his life keeps him out of politics, he can move anywhere he likes. In fact, when the other ‘Honest John’ leaves for Hawai’i, this one should go and live in the house next door so they can endlessly re-hash old times without any need for the rest of us to be burdened by their blether.

      • Puckish Rogue 18.2.1

        Don’t worry Sir John Key will leave after he wins the 2017 election so maybe around 2018, early 2019

        • McFlock 18.2.1.1

          you reckon ol’ tugger will last that long, eh.

          The scraping sound from caucus ain’t shears being sharpened, it’s “daggers, back, for insertion into”.

      • seeker 18.2.2

        Hateatea it may be difficult for them to ‘rehash old times’ as both frequently admit to having no recall whatsoever of events or conversations they have taken part in.

  19. North 19

    Whatever whatever…….Banks was fetid, indeed very stinky long before all this business. No one’s fooled. Not even those whose political senses are uplifted more or less by this result. I mean like no other party ACT has form in embracing the dodgy ones, even when they know beforehand. Bugger all morals you see.

  20. millsy 20

    That John Banks thinks that animals are more important than children in poverty, and his desire to slash wages to zero and close down anything that is publicly owned makes him an evil person.

    • North 20.1

      And while the right wing weeps about the ‘injustice’ Banks has suffered how many of them really, really, even now, give a toss about that little ‘underclass’ fulla Teina Pora ? Or his family ? His world was smashed apart at 17 years of age.

      I’m not talking about the principled example of the right wing type. There are some. I’m talking about the enablers of the likes of Banks, the wannabee bastards whose moral entirety is directed by questions of money, power and status. And their own pathetic ‘asprayshuns’ to the same. Tough for you Banks. It wasn’t 20 years in the slammer was it dear ? Moaning scum !

  21. Nick K 21

    Disgraced former National MP, ACT leader and Auckland Mayor John Banks…

    Why is he disgraced?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 21.1

      Because his ‘defence’ was ‘I didn’t solicit bribes at the dinner table: I solicited them in the other room.’

  22. North 22

    Banks ……you’re raving on in the Herald about the “lonely place” you’ve been in. Tough. It wasn’t the slammer ! Grande Dame Michelle Boag stood by you didn’t she ?

    This shit happens to truly innocent poor people all over New Zealand every day at the hands of ‘The Law’ and pricks like you. Entitled, snivelling little germ you are. In the small picture ‘The Law’ says you’re acquitted. I’ll buy that. On principle I have to. You are not to be subject to criminal penalty. Still, it’s a tunnelled, convenient, ‘master-of-the-universe temeritously challenged’ view. The big picture……no one’s fooled Banks. Morally crook as, you !

    Careful, as you busily rush off to “my QC” to whinge about compensation……careful you don’t trip over the art-form calumny you’ve heaped on countless others for decades – the cheap and nasty little talkback shows, the vile carry on in parliament.

    I reserve my sympathy for Arthur Thomas, Dougherty, Teina Pora. The list’s by no means exhaustive.

    • marty mars 22.1

      + 1 We will now be subject to inundation of bankys droop dog look endearing sympathy.

      • dukeofurl 22.1.1

        hes looking for ‘compensation’ for the pain and suffering his family has been through.

        I suppose that will come up against the test’ Did he do it’

  23. Reddelusion 23

    What a ( rymthes with tanker)? You are North, typical sanctimonious left git who thinks they have a mortgage on caring and what’s right thank god the average joe and those you (in your little delusional Kingdom) supposly represent don’t drink your kool aid

    • Weepus beard 23.1

      The socially conscious left do have a mortgage on caring. That is the definition of socially conscious.

      • Colonial Rawshark 23.1.1

        Reddelusion seems to have a lot of caring for John Banks. Yeeuch.

  24. ianmac 24

    On the TV3 Late news they flashed a statement from Kim Dotcom.
    They didn’t read it but it seemed to be a set of short sentences.
    eg Banks was offered $50,000
    The cheques were made out as 2 amounts of $25,000
    plus another 9-10 lines. (They just flashed it onscreen.)

    “A technicality gets him off,” Mr Dotcom tweeted today. “One law for them, one law for us.

    “A great day for John Banks, a bad day for justice.”

    Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/kim-dotcom-a-bad-day-for-justice-2015051921#ixzz3aaByaGER

  25. Facetious 25

    The price to pay for relying on the words of KDC, the man who bought Harre, Corkery, Minto and Harawhira. Never mind.

    Thank God for Kelvin Davis.

    • vto 25.1

      I believe dotcom over key, Obama, five eyes, john banks et al every day of the week.

      You should try assessing facts instead of running on simplistic assumption and knee jerks

      • Halfcrown 25.1.1

        “You should try assessing facts instead of running on simplistic assumption and knee jerks”

        I could not have said it better.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 25.2

      We don’t have to rely on KDC to know Banks discussed donations with him, because that was Banks’ defence in court.

      • Nick K 25.2.1

        Banks didn’t have a “defence”.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 25.2.1.1

          Her evidence supported the defence case, which was that Mr Banks and Mr Dotcom had held a private and quite different discussion about donations in a conservatory or loggia off the dining room.

          The judgement of the Court of Appeal.

          Found guilty and convicted, then let off on a procedural technicality (the CoA described it as a “process error”).

          I note that you are running your mouth without having read the judgement.

  26. Nick K 26

    The defence case was that KDC and his henchmen were liars. That’s not a defence. The defence case could be that Banks was insane, and that would be a defence. But saying someone else is lying is not a defence.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1

      “John Banks to 3News, 27th April 2012: “Well I met with them, I know them, but I can’t recall discussing money with them.”

      John Banks’ defence in court: “Mr Banks and Mr Dotcom had held a private and quite different discussion about donations in a conservatory or loggia off the dining room.”

      Your candidate for mayor of Auckland. Will you wipe him off your shoe or tread him all over the carpet?

      • Nick K 26.1.1

        Neither. I’ve stood by him through all of this and will continue to do so. It’s called loyalty to your friends. Ever heard of it?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 26.1.1.1

          Turning a blind eye while your friend signs a false election return isn’t the act of a good friend, sweety.

  27. Nick K 27

    Is that what you said to Helen Clark when she stood up for and backed Taito Philip Field?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 27.1

      As a Green voter I find the question risible, not to mention that HC stood TPF down etc etc.

  28. North 28

    Through thick and thin what, Nick K(in) ? How noble of you ! You are correct about one thing though……the weirdly shrill Woody Allen replicant had no defence…..a disclosure based Crown cock-up he did have but no defence. That’s it. Enjoy the vicarious martyrdom, idiot.

  29. reason 29

    john banks is as innocent as the roastbusters ……………… well maybe a tad less innocent as they never even made it to court.

    Its a great judgement for bringing the legal system into further disrepute.

    It’s also good for showing the ‘standards’ that we are being governed by ……

    Sure is a brighter future for some ……………..

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts