Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review
115 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
As Graeme has observed on Twitter, they wouldn’t still be sitting to enable a vote.
I was speaking based on a hypothetical sentencing now, not on a real sentencing after Parliament has been dissolved. At the time I asked the initial question it hadn't made the news that sentencing wasn't going to happen until August.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
the judge said it would be at least home detention.
No, the judge asked for a report on Banks' suitability for home detention. They're not the same thing. It's a standard pre-sentence report which is necessary for the judge to make an informed decision. If it came down to prison or a fine through a lack of suitability for home detention, that might sway the sentence. Or Banks' counsel might make a very compelling argument for discharge without conviction. But the judge would be remiss to wait until the day of sentencing to ensure he's got all the data necessary to inform his options.
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
Heh. Well, based on Mr Edgeler's tweets, they might be stuck with a by-election. I'm sure someone will run to stop it being unopposed. Worst case, they'd get to draw a week or two's pay if elected.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
That would be a firm reason for Labour to refuse to support a deferral of the by-election, thus ensuring that ACT criminality remains a foreground issue.
A firm reason for Labour not to play this game at all is by that point in the electoral cycle if they don't have a sizable chunk of uncommitted voters convinced they have a credible agenda befitting a government in waiting, "ACT criminality" isn't going to do shit.
-
The obvious referendum that's going to matter on ACT will be Epsom voters in the general election. With 3 cases of fraud now undisputed, even the most dedicated supporter of the government has to be asking if there's a better way than for them to have to keep voting for criminals. Maybe they could just do it the traditional way, by voting for the National party.
-
Thanks, Ben -- stay classy or it's going to be a very long and unpleasant three months and change.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
No, the judge asked for a report on Banks’ suitability for home detention. They’re not the same thing.
I was going to say "that's what it said on Radio NZ" but it occurs to me now that the person who said it was a very excited Graham McCready.
-
A friend points to:
The Rainy Day
The day is cold, and dark, and dreary;
It rains, and the wind is never weary;
The vine still clings to the mouldering wall,
But at every gust the dead leaves fall,
And the day is dark and dreary.My life is cold, and dark, and dreary;
It rains, and the wind is never weary;
My thoughts still cling to the mouldering Past,
But the hopes of youth fall thick in the blast,
And the days are dark and dreary.Be still, sad heart! and cease repining;
Behind the clouds is the sun still shining;
Thy fate is the common fate of all,
Into each life some rain must fall,
Some days must be dark and dreary.Henry Wadsworth Longfellow 1842
She further suggests that Banks characterisation of this as a “wonderful 1930s song” on the steps of the court yesterday may indicate that his defense of “ignorance” may have some basis ….
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Quiet days in Cliche...
or wet wet wet...?a “wonderful 1930s song”
I'm thinking Banks is thinking more Inkspots ('40s) than Queen...
but they are all on the money (as it were)...Into each life some rain must fall
But too much is falling in mine
Into each heart some tears must fall
But some day the sun will shineSome folks can lose the blues in their hearts
But when I think of you another shower starts
Into each life some rain must fall
But too much is falling in mineHe must be singing about Dotcom or McCready...
I can see it in your stars
Life is so exciting
Acting so bizzare
Your world is so inviting
Playing really cool
And looking so mysterious honey
Your every day is full of sunshine
But into every life a little rain must fallOthers seem to think
You are over dramatising
Problems at work
So it's hardly suprising
There's little you can do
To alter their opinions honey
You want a clean reputation
But now you're facing complications
'Cos into every life a little rain must fallBut songs aside - that he stays in Parliament is a travesty
Guilty should be a Red Card or at least a Yellow Card until the election- John Key is known by the company he keeps...
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
I was going to say “that’s what it said on Radio NZ”
Much as I respect RNZ, they are still fallible. Probably not as fallible as Granny, however, which reported that it requires a 75% supporting vote in Parliament to call a by-election, rather than the other way around.
That it was McCready, though, is more believable. Can't blame the man for being excited. -
Matthew Poole, in reply to
that he stays in Parliament is a travesty
Guilty should be a Red Card or at least a Yellow Card until the electionThat is not, however, what the law says. The law says "conviction" not "found guilty", and he's not yet convicted.
From the verdict:
"Mr Banks is a sitting Member of Parliament.
He was formerly a member of the Cabinet and a Minister of the Crown. He is a member, and was formerly the leader, of the ACT Party. Mr Banks is the only member of the ACT Party currently in Parliament and the ACT Party currently supports the Government. My verdict may have consequences at a political level."
You can't really fault the judge for not wanting to kick off the political shit-storm that would be triggered by ejection of an MP so close to a scheduled general election. It's not like he's postponed sentencing from outside the six-month window so as to force a vote on a by-election.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
they are still fallible
The Press's editorial about Banks refers to a 'Judge Wiley'...
(they'll hopefully fix it on line, I gave 'em a heads up. but it looks silly in the paper...)What really gets me though is that they run the editorial, buried on-line- - but no where else on the Press masthead website does the Banks story show up at all, its like they don't think Chchch folk, of all people, would want to hear about a crooked and guilty sitting MP, wow !
(same with the Williamson story - it's like it never really happened)Not even a link to the Stuff central coverage - weird...
- who makes these blinkered news decision?
They don't seem interested in having traffic to their site, or to make themselves a news destination - why bother at all? -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
He is a member, and was formerly the leader, of the ACT Party. Mr Banks is the only member of the ACT Party currently in Parliament and the ACT Party currently supports the Government.
Which makes Jamie Whyte’s apparent lack of interest (on air this morning) so puzzling – is it not his party’s reputation that is being sullied and diminished – like it or not, until September Banks is their ‘elected’ representative in the public eye…
Kinda like wandering off and leaving a rubbish fire to burn out by itself…
-
Remember that ACT was taken over by the Nats for the last election, after failing to mop up a perceived missing right wing vote they're not really interested any more so I think the old ACT have taken their party back, they're probably not very interested in the usurpers in parliament still using their name
-
Tim Michie, in reply to
"Into Each Life Some Rain Must Fall" ... The B-side of the single entitled, "I'm Making Believe"
Thank you Wikipedia, thank you.
-
Matthew Poole, in reply to
they’re probably not very interested in the usurpers in parliament still using their name
Probably not, but they're still associated via that name and that association is doing what remains of their reputation no good whatsoever.
-
Geoff Lealand, in reply to
Maybe 'A hard rain's gonna fall' might be more appropriate?
-
Paul Campbell, in reply to
Probably not, but they’re still associated via that name and that association is doing what remains of their reputation no good whatsoever.
I agree - but I think that in their minds they've moved on (Why can't everybody else! don't they understand!) - I do kind of get the impression it's become amateur hour over at ACT
-
I think Key's got three choices:
- cut ACT loose and actively campaign to win Epsom
Downside would be that there are quite a lot of ACToid zombies left, and hence a good chance they'd waste a percent or so of votes
Also, I guess National are loath to behead the corpse of an ACT party that's served them well over the years in advocating for policies the Nats are loath to put forward, like charter schools and privatising the Army- have a cuppa with Seymour, indicate the usual deal
Two risks here: the voters of Epsom are sufficiently pissed off not to join in, and the rest of electorate are turned off National by the increasing sleaze factor- say absolutely nothing and see what happens
Probably the best option, but one with a good chance of terminating ACT. Will Key risk it? -
Joe Wylie, in reply to
I do kind of get the impression it’s become amateur hour over at ACT
That's hardly a new development.You could even claim that Banks is the most "professional" of the three ACT MPs who've been found guilty of an offence in court. Then there was the ridiculous Trevor Loudon, who was party vice president a few years back. It was Loudon who was famously attacked by a rice flail wielding martial artist after harassing him for driving a Lada. Loudon's beef appeared to be that Lada components were manufactured in the Soviet gulag. Presumably he had no objection to Banks's early 90s advocacy of exploiting the Maori prison population to produce handicrafts for the tourist trade.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
-
BenWilson, in reply to
have a cuppa with Seymour, indicate the usual deal
Two risks here: the voters of Epsom are sufficiently pissed off not to join in, and the rest of electorate are turned off National by the increasing sleaze factorThere's no downside in doing that, in Epsom. If they don't vote ACT, they'll vote National. But the downside might be around the rest of the country, amongst undecideds making their call about the judgment of Key, if they see him cosying to a party that just had it's leader found guilty of fraud. Key would be thinking about the effect on National's party vote, in continued association with ACT. In actual fact, there could be a net positive reason to kill ACT now, thus discouraging party vote for them, which would probably go to National or nowhere. Gaming it that way, they should actually campaign strongly in Epsom, to completely dislodge ACT.
But I think that's unlikely, because while it might even make National some votes, it's still extremely convenient to have a party to the right of them. I don't think it's going to be tenable position to be the most extreme right party in the whole spectrum of elected representatives. That's just too naked to the threat of the entire center abandoning them. They could end up in a situation where every single other party would just as easily ally with Labour as them. We already know that Maori Party, Dunne, and NZF can and have worked in government with Labour before, and the Greens and Mana probably would, given the chance.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Not even a link to the Stuff central coverage
OK, I retract that,
they do have a comprehensive selection of links beside the editorial
- but only there, still no trace on the 'front page' of the website -
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Perhaps I'm really naive, but the smart move for every politician would be to STFU and let the actual member of the judiciary in this sad and tawdry tale do his damn job.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Perhaps I’m really naive, but the smart move for every politician would be to STFU and let the actual member of the judiciary in this sad and tawdry tale do his damn job.
No it's not. They can't sit on their laurels just because Justice moves Slowly. They are in an election year, engaged full time in vote winning. Whether Banks gets a conviction will probably not make a lick of difference to public perception, and they need to form their strategy in real time, continually. Politicians won't be making public announcements about convictions, unless they want to be sued, but they sure as hell will be making plans constantly.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.