R v Banks

[2014] NZHC 1244

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2012-085-009093 [2014] NZHC 1244

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS

Hearing:	19–22, 26–27 and 29 May 2014
Appearances:	P E Dacre QC and A Van Echten for the Crown DPH Jones QC and K Venning for the Defendant
Verdict and Reasons for Verdict:	5 June 2014

REASONS FOR VERDICT OF WYLIE J

R v BANKS [2014] NZHC 1244 [5 June 2014]

INDEX

Paragraph Introduction ............................................................................................................[1] Judge alone trial .....................................................................................................[5] Structure ...............................................................................................................[12] Relevant rules of law and practice .......................................................................[13]

The applicable law – The Local Electoral Act 2001 ............................................[21] (a)      Is the person whose conduct is under scrutiny a candidate? ....................[30] (b)      Transmission of return of electoral expenses? ..........................................[31] (c)      Was the return false in any material particular?.......................................[32] (d)      Knowledge of the falsity ............................................................................[37]

Overall factual setting ..........................................................................................[49] The mayoral campaign.........................................................................................[49] Information provided to candidates .....................................................................[55] Mr Banks’ campaign team....................................................................................[58] Fundraising for the mayoral campaign ...............................................................[60] How donations were sought .................................................................................[67] The return of electoral expenses ..........................................................................[71]

Elements of the offence – evidence, reasoning and conclusions .........................[82] Was Mr Banks a candidate? .................................................................................[82] Did Mr Banks transmit the return of electoral expenses? ...................................[83] Was the return of electoral expenses transmitted by Mr Banks false in one
or more material particulars? ..............................................................................[84] (a)      The SkyCity donation.................................................................................[86] (b)      The Dotcom donations.............................................................................[101] Did Mr Banks know of the falsities? ..................................................................[135] (a)      The SkyCity donation...............................................................................[141] (b)      The Dotcom donations.............................................................................[148]

Introduction

[1]      The Honourable Mr John Banks is charged with one count of transmitting a return  of  electoral  expenses,  knowing  it  to  be  false  in  one  or  more  material particulars.

[2]      The indictment reads as follows:

The Solicitor-General charges that John Archibald Banks on or about the

9th day of December 2010 at Auckland, being a candidate, transmitted a return of electoral expenses knowing it to be false in one or more material

particulars.

Particulars:   The return of electoral expenses and donations for the 2010

Auckland mayoral election signed by the said John Archibald Banks listed as

“anonymous” the following donations and in respect of which he knew the identity of the donor:

i)        Donation  in  the  sum  of  $15,000  made  by  Skycity  Management

Limited and received on or about 24 May 2010;

ii)        Donation in the sum of $25,000 made by Megastuff Limited on behalf of Kim Dotcom and received on or about 14 June 2010;

iii)       Second donation in the sum of $25,000 made by Megastuff Limited on behalf of Kim Dotcom and received on or about 14 June 2010.

[3]      I have found Mr Banks guilty of the charge.   I am not persuaded beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Banks knew that the return of electoral expenses was false in  relation  to  the  $15,000  donation  made  by  SkyCity  Management  Limited (SkyCity), but I am sure that Mr Banks knew that the return was false in relation to the  two  donations,  each  of  $25,000,  made  by  Megastuff…