Posts by Matthew Poole
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Russell Brown,
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. -
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Russell Brown,
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Sacha,
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.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Not really, because this was an actual criminal trial with the Solicitor General (eventually) acting as the prosecuting authority. Banks faces jail time for this, not just civil damages.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
By-elections are expensive for the Electoral Commission to run, and you’re assuming that any of the major parties would want their names tied in the general election to wasting taxpayer money on a petty political stunt; which is all that this would be.
For your theory to function, other parties would have to campaign. That costs money. With a general election due mere weeks after this notional by-election, nobody is going to bother competing because they’d rather hold aside their funds. Even if, and it’s a massive if, Act were unsuccessful, a National candidate would win because they’re the only other party palatable to Epsom voters. Labour and the Greens sure as hell aren’t winning, even if it were a two-horse race between either of them and Seymour.The likely turn of events would be that Act would be the only party to nominate a candidate and the election would be declared accordingly. No money spent, no campaigning, and sure as hell no de facto referendum on Banks’ behaviour.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
there will be a by-election
No, there will not. A general election is due in just over three months. Sentencing is not due, apparently, until 1 August, by which time the House will have risen ahead of the election. Even if he were sentenced now, it is unlikely that more than 25% of Parliament would vote to hold a by-election which would produce an MP who sat for mere days before the current Parliament is dissolved.
-
Legal Beagle: Q&A: John Banks' judicial review, in reply to Matthew Poole,
With Banks convicted
Found guilty, rather. Talk about begging the question!
-
OK, so it's now rather less academic. With Banks convicted, we get to find out the machinations of the process of entering a conviction when there's the possibility of seeking a discharge without conviction.
Is a DWOC even overly likely? It would, to my eyes, come across as a slightly soggy HOP receipt over the back of one's wrist after such egregious misbehaviour; the sum may be relatively trifling, but the principle of the matter is enormous.
-
John Banks found guilty!
-
Hard News: Two roads lead to the city, in reply to Bart Janssen,
totally separate pedestrians and bikes from cars and trucks.
But the cost, Bart! And the loss of precious road space!