The additional element that must be proved in the more serious charge is that (in addition to knowing of the donations), Banks also knew they were incorrectly recorded.
And unless anyone has evidence counter to Banks' argument that he didn't read the forms he was signing, simply asked "Is this correct?" of the person who actually filled them out... surely the above all falls down there?
How come if us plebs sign, say, a mortgage or insurance agreement, without reading and understanding every single clause.... we get told well you're responsible because you signed it.... but when its some rich or (in)famous dude... he can't possibly be guilty because he didn't read what he's signing?
The buck has to stop somewhere.... if you sign a fraudulent document then you are responsible.
I beleive recent prosecution cases involving directors of failed finance companies have (at least partially) succeeded despite them saying "we signed the prospectus because the lawyers/accountants said it was OK" . No?
Even so, and without spending my morning parsing election results, I’d think that area has voted around 50% for right-wing parties in recent elections.
Even so... I'd like to think the vast majority of potential jurors, whether politically right or left leaning... would attempt to evaluate a case on it's merits (while obviously being subject to foibles and unconscious prejudices)...
I doubt many people are thinking "I voted Banks, so I'm going to find him not guilty no-matter how convincing the evidence" or indeed " I Voted against Banks, so I'm going to convict no matter how flimsy.... "
If the case is clear-cut, I have no doubt a jury would find the same as a judge... but if the facts are less clear, or what common sense says is corruption has been proved (or at least strongly suggested as likely) , but it doesn't quite match up with the wording in the statutes... A judge will not let their own personal opinion of Banks influence their finding.... but it may well influence members of the public in a jury who are having trouble deciding?
And just because you support the right or left, and vote for the candidate standing on that side, does not mean you think that person is a fine upstanding citizen... it's quite common to vote for the arse standing on the ticket you support instead of the arse standing for the other team...
On the topic of Bank not having signalled he's interested in a judge only trial, but still having that option...
It occurs to me (no legal training) that judges are more likely to follow the written word of a law even if it defies "common sense" and also, are more likely to know exactly what level of evidence constitutes proof beyond reasonable doubt as compared to say, merely suggesting something is likely.... They are also more likely to completely ignore someones public persona, and stick to what's presented in court, ignoring all "previous knowledge" of a subject.
On the other hand, a jury while trying to follow these ideals, is far more likely to let these things influence them.
If the evidence or points of law presented are at all marginal, or not quite as clear-cut as they seem to be (as presented in the media over the past few years), I think Banks reputation and public persona would likely see him more likely convicted by a jury than a judge, but his own opinion of his reputation and persona might not allow him to see this, or accept it if offered as advice.
Short version- I expect he probably thinks he has a better chance with a Jury, but in fact would have a better chance with a judge.
International: David Bowie @ Western Springs on his Glass Spider Tour (1987?)
My recall of that concert:
Great Band, Great lights, Great Dancers, and a Mr Bowie who was obviously sick and tired of the tour and was clearly just going through the motions...
(it was the very last date of a 7-month-86 concert world tour )
Update: just remembered: also during primary school- year/age forgotten… Being bus-ed to the Moorrabbin Town Hall to see Melbourne Symphony Orchestra playing a selection classics for kids, theme from Peter and the wolf, 1812 Overture, Flight of Bumblebee, and such… including conductor explaining different sections (i.e., brass, woodwinds, strings, percussion, etc.) of orchestra and how they all sounded different but worked together… was fun and educational!
I dont recall if our whole school went, or just several classes… but the same thing was obviously happening for many other nearby schools at same time… I’d never seen so many kids (or busses) in the same place at once.
First concerts with parents? I Don’t recall them as I was a baby in a bassinet… many and various Jazz concerts and gigs
First concerts with that I recall (with parents). Melbourne City Council sponsored “FEIPS” (free entertainment in parks) a whole summer afternoon/evening of various big-band and small combo Jazz at the Meyer Music Bowl, several years in a row around 1975 or so… memorable for the music, the picnic food, and the running away into the park to climb trees, throw “dry ice” nicked from the caterers into the streams, and catch yabbies (fresh-water crayfish) with both old friends and ones made that day… (age 7-9)
School lunch-time concert The Mockers in 1982 or 3…
First international concert: Dire Straights 1986 at Mt Smart- Brothers in Arms tour.
First pub gig: Helping set-up (ie. “roadie”) friends of my brothers, Hoi Poloi at the Gluepot (aged 17 or so)
Near miss: In 1984 (fifth former) I asked my mother if I could catch a bus into town after school to see the Aotea Square free concert which turned into the Queen St Riot… She declined, but mainly due to a misunderstanding of the nature of the event… turns out she would have been happy for me to go if she’d known what it a was (before things turned sour). Never so glad of being declined permission before or since…
Oh, found the staircase….
It's hard to miss... :)
Feeling good feels.
That's what it's all about....
So many good songs posted here I could make individual comments on...
But Feeling good feels, sums it up brilliantly...
P.S... loving the Aretha Soul Train vibe.... Introduced to her by Blues Brothers but loving the back catalogue....
I am not a lawyer, and I've only read the bits (of the act(s)) you've posted... but heres a way you could read it to fit Boag (and Polino's?) reading...
Your term of mayoral-ship is from signing in to signing in... Which is a week or two after most elections.
An election decides who get in at the next signing in... but an election is NOT the end of your term as mayor... signing in the next one (possibly the same person) is the end of the term. After an election, but before official results confirmation... who gets signed in for the next term is not yet decided/known...
So if any mayoral (or other elected) candidate withdraws after the election but before the official results/signing in... thats EXACTLY the same as as if they withdrew any-time in the previous 12-months... There's an election soon and we'll muddle by with an appointed replacement until the results of the "next" election are known... oh-my-goodness, the "next election" has already been held?
And now I've seen Steve Todd's far more thorough post than my own suggesting that any earlier than a 2010 amendment this is almost exactly how it could have played out?
His name’s Dave. I know that.
There's a lot of Daves... might have to cull the list a bit to narrow it down?