R v Banks

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CRI 2012-085-9093 [2013] NZHC 3223

THE QUEEN

v

JOHN ARCHIBALD BANKS

Hearing: (on the papers)

Counsel:

P E Dacre QC for Crown
D P H Jones QC for Mr Banks

Judgment:

3 December 2013

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 December 2013 at 4.30pm pursuant to Rule
11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Crown Law, Wellington Parlane Law, Auckland Counsel:
P E Dacre QC, Auckland
D P H Jones QC, Auckland

R v BANKS [2013] NZHC 3223 [3 December 2013]

[1] Contemporaneously, I have delivered a judgment dismissing Mr Banks’ application for judicial review of a decision of the District Court to commit him for trial on a charge brought under s 134(1) of the Local Electoral Act 2001.1

[2] Counsel agreed, in advance of the judicial review hearing, that if I were to dismiss that application, the criminal proceeding could be transferred by consent to this Court for hearing. The jurisdiction for such an order springs from s 28J of the District Courts Act 1947.

[3] In the circumstances, I agree that this prosecution should be tried in this

Court. My reasons are:

(a) The Crown alleges that Mr Banks, a sitting Member of Parliament, knowingly transmitted a false return of electoral expenses and donations to the electoral officer following an unsuccessful campaign for the Auckland Mayoralty in 2010.

(b)If Mr Banks were convicted, the Epsom electoral seat, which Mr Banks currently holds, will be declared vacant and he will no longer hold office as a Member of Parliament.

(c) Mr Banks is also the leader of the ACT political party. That party has a confidence and supply agreement with the current government.

(d)A general election is scheduled for next year and the outcome of this trial could conceivably have an impact on the result of the general election.

(e) It is in the public interest that the senior trial Court conduct the trial.

[4] By consent, I make an order transferring the proceeding to this Court. Mr Banks is remanded at large to appear at callover at 9am on 11 December 2013. I anticipate a plea will be entered at that time to the count contained in the current

indictment that has been filed in the District Court. Also, an election will need to be made as to trial before a jury or Judge sitting alone.

[5] For the same reasons given for transferring the proceeding to this Court, I recommend to the Criminal List Judge that this proceeding be given priority. It is undesirable that a trial, the result of which could have a material impact on a general election, be delayed until a time proximate to polling day. I understand that, depending upon whether Mr Banks elects trial by jury or Judge-alone, a hearing date might be available in the first quarter of next year.

[6] In anticipation of callover, counsel for the Crown may wish to reconsider whether charges involving three separate donations should be incorporated into a single count. Difficulties of the type discussed by the Supreme Court in Mason v R2 may potentially arise. That is something for counsel to consider rather than for the
Court, at this stage, to direct.

P R Heath J

Delivered at 4.30pm on 3 December 2013

In the case of R v Banks, the defendant, John Archibald Banks, a sitting Member of Parliament and leader of the ACT political party, was prosecuted for allegedly knowingly transmitting a false return of electoral expenses and donations to the electoral officer following an unsuccessful campaign for the Auckland Mayoralty in 2010. The case was initially heard in the District Court but was transferred to the High Court due to the significant public interest and potential implications for the upcoming general election.

The legal issues before the court involved the transfer of the criminal proceeding from the District Court to the High Court and the scheduling of the trial to ensure it did not coincide with the general election. The court had to determine whether the High Court was the appropriate forum for the trial and whether the trial should be given priority to avoid any potential impact on the election results.

The court ruled that the High Court was the appropriate forum for the trial due to the public interest and potential consequences of the trial outcome on the general election. The court transferred the proceeding to the High Court and recommended that the Criminal List Judge give the proceeding priority to ensure it was completed before the election. The court also suggested that the Crown reconsider the charges to avoid potential difficulties.

The final orders included the transfer of the proceeding to the High Court and the scheduling of the trial to avoid any impact on the general election. The court anticipated a plea to be entered and an election for trial by jury or Judge-alone at the callover on 11 December 2013.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	(on the papers)
Counsel:	P E Dacre QC for Crown D P H Jones QC for Mr Banks
Judgment:	3 December 2013