UPDATE: Here's what the Police have actually said, without any political or journalistic spin:
In breaking news, there will be no charges against John Banks over the SkyCity and Kim Dotcom donations in 2010.
Outcome of Police investigation into electoral returns of Hon John Banks
July 26, 2012, 11:59 am
Statement from Assistant Commissioner Malcolm Burgess:
Police investigating allegations that the Hon John Banks knowingly transmitted a false electoral return have decided there is insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution for an offence under section 134(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.
This follows complaints about returns filed relating to donations from Sky City Casino, Mr Kim Dotcom and a radio advertising donation to the 2010 Auckland Super City mayoralty campaign of Mr Banks.
The inquiry has established the return was compiled by a campaign volunteer who assured Mr Banks it was accurate before Mr Banks signed and transmitted the return.
In terms of Section 134 (2) of the Local Electoral Act relating to transmitting a false return there is a statutory limit of six months from the time of elections when complaints must be laid. Police first received the complaint for investigation on 27 April 2012, well after the expiry of six month period. Police are therefore unable to consider charges pursuant to Section 134 (2).
END
Issued by:
Grant Ogilvie
Chief Media Adviser, PNHQ
********************************
In breaking news, there will be no charges against John Banks over the SkyCity and Kim Dotcom donations in 2010.
UPDATE: The Herald reports (with our emphasis added):
Act MP John Banks has been cleared of any charges relating to anonymous donations to his 2010 Mayoral campaign.The police decision not proceed with charges was disclosed in a letter this morning to Labour MP Trevor Mallard who laid the complaint.Mr Mallard's complaint related to donations to Mr Banks' campaign from internet multi-millionaire Kim Dotcom and casino operator SkyCity and also free radio advertising his campaign received.
Referring to two $25,000 donations from Mr Dotcom, police said they had established Mr Banks personally solicited a donations which were subsequently recorded as anonymous in Mr Banks' Electoral Return.However Detective Superintendent Peter Read said police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the donation had been recorded as anonymous in the return before he signed and submitted it.The return was compiled by a campaign volunteer and Mr Banks sought and received confirmation that it was an accurate return of his expenses before signing and transmitting the return.
Police were "therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution under the Local Electoral Act 2001, section 134 (1)".Police also said they were unable to consider charges that Mr Banks submitted a false return under Section 134 (2) because any such charges had to be laid within six months of the return being supplied.Police first received the complaint on April 27, about ten months after the expiry of that period.
Goodness; there's not even a "not in the public interest to prosecute" clause. That phrase seems to have left the lexicon with the expiry of Howard Broad's tenure as Police Commissioner.
29 comments:
Thank goodness. That'll take a bit of heat off his lying and fudging.
It will be interesting to see what comes out of the police investigation, but I think John Key was probably right in claiming that there was no illegal activity. He did also mention that the law around declaring donations at a local body level was less distinct than for general elections.
John Banks credibility has taken a huge hit because of the ethical nature of his behaviour and it is the tolerance of such evasion of ethical responsibility that has appalled me. It was fairly obvious that Banks had taken legal advice and then deliberately evaded giving straight answers to questions regarding his knowledge and relationship with Dotcom to keep within legal parameters.
Banks is necessary for the Government to hold a majority but to tolerate obvious dishonesty and to ignore basic ethical obligations of transparency in financial interests is a concern.
He'll claim total vindication despite having been shown to be an obfuscating immoral liar. Just watch.
If this had been a member of the Labour government the right would be screaming about Police corruption. Think that will happen here?
The prick got off on a technicality.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7353754/Banks-won-t-be-charged-police-say
"Police are therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution in respect of section 134(1) (of the Local Electorate Act)."
Complaints under another section, 134(2), were not possible because they must be laid within six months of the return being supplied, and police had first received the complaint 10 months after the six months had expired.
Which Mallard ought to have anticipated Mark. The Statute of Limitations had already expired by almost a year when he laid his complaint.
I don't like John Banks very much, I think he's so awkward that there is a high possibility that he is in fact an alein in a human suit.
So, taking Bsprouts comments on ethics, how does this case differ from Winstons dip dive duck dodge and weave about receiving donations from Owen Glenn
Forgive my spelling, I am in dire need of quality coffee.
Good question Ciaron (and go and get that caffeine fix!). The big difference is that Winston Peters was found by his peers to have knowingly misled them by filing an incorrect return of pecuniary interests.
Interestingly, Labour continued to rely on Peters' vote, and one has to wonder whether Labour's refusal to vote to censure Peters despite overwhelming evidence of guilt had something to do with NZ First's support of Helen Clark's world-leader ETS legislation.
At least bsprout's beloved Green Party was principled enough to distance itself from Winston Peters, and vote to censure him.
"Labour continued to rely on Peters' vote..."
Just as the National Party will keep Banks in its Ministry and keep relying on him for his vote. So much for a higher standard eh?
So much for a higher standard eh?
Yep. Bastards to a man the lot of 'em.
There's a small but significant difference Spinoza. The allegations against Banks relate to events when he was not a Minister, not a party leader and not even an MP. The allegations against Peters, accepted by a majority of his peers in the House relate to events which occurred whilst he WAS all of the above.
The lies and really weird behaviour occurred when he was a Minister of the Crown in the Key government (acutally he's been weird for years and years, but however). Key's fired National Party colleagues for far less. What's the difference now I wonder.
Ciaron's right.
I suppose there is the question of whether Key can actually fire him (to be sure, key could remove his portfolio's), seeing as he is not technically a member of the national party.
Ciaron- Winston's situation was probably very similar and the easiest way around it is to do what the Greens do and not accept money from sources that may put you in situations where there could be conflicts of interest. Clayton Cosgrove has had to wrestle with this as well.
KS-appreciated your reference to the Green's stance regarding Peters :-)
Oh, but real estate is a different matter eh.
@ bsprout - credit where it's due. Russel Norman's speech in the debate on the censure motion absolutely nailed the impausability of Peters' explanation; here 'tis:
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/8/1/d/48HansD_20080923_00000825-Privilege-Consideration-of-Report-of-Privileges.htm
@ Spinoza - are you Judge Holden in disguise? Banks' campaign return would have been filed in early 2011. At that point he was not the mayor of Auckland, not a Minister in John Key's government, not an MP, not an Act candidate, and to the best of my knowledge, not even a member of the Act Party. To be sure, his behaviour when confronted with these allegations was bizarre, but eccentricty is hardly new to MP's and Ministers from all manner of governments in years gone by.
Ciaron-Real estate? I think I know what you are referring to but would be interested in your take regarding wrong doing.
An informative link related to this thread: http://pundit.co.nz/content/john-banks-not-unlawful-just-incompetent
About the same wrong doing as Bill English (I don't rate him either), nothing technically wrong, just a perception of being greedy little piggies.
@ bsprout - I'm guessing that Ciaron is referring to the Independent Fisheries donation to Clayton Cosgrove, and the Members' Bill that Cosgrove had been promoting that would have seen Independent Fisheries benefit markedly and materially.
Thanks for the link, KS, and it also reminded me what an asset Simon Power was to the National Party he was widely regarded for supporting good process. I am afraid I have heard many concerning stories about how his remaining colleagues are not as enthusiastic about good process when chairing their select committees.
Nothing at all to do with plug-head, KS.
Remember this?
Aha; cheers for that Ciaron. Isn't it odd how time dims the memory. And then of course there was Winston's mate Tuku, and his expensive tastes in undergarments; troughers all of 'em!
Thanks for the link, Ciaron, I think we need to accept we are all human and make mistakes (intentional or otherwise), but there is a huge difference in how different parties and individuals manage mistakes and set things right.
It's just the petulant, infatile comportment of our politicians that hacks me off, and they're all bloody guilty of it. I mean FFS, don't we as a nation have some slightly more pressing issues to address?
They can either start making some real changes to better the lot of everyone or they can just all fuck off as far as I'm concerned.
(apologies for the profanity,but I really needed to get that off my chest.)
Yep. Well said.
@ The Light of Truth - defamatory = deleted.
It's not defamatory if it's true.
That's as may be Edward, but I am allergic to lawsuits!
Post a Comment