10 December 2013
The trial of John Archibald Banks for alleged electoral fraud will now be heard in the Auckland High Court, not the Auckland District Court.
The next hearing is :
WHERE: Auckland High Court
WHEN: Wednesday 11 December 2013
See decision of J Heath 3 December 2013
10 November 2013
Press Release from Graham McCready re: Judicial Review Hearing :
CIV 2013 – 404 – 4645
BETWEEN John Archibald Banks
AND Auckland District Court
“Please find attached the Minute of Judge Heath for the 27 November Hearing.
As confirmed by the attached letter the Solicitor General is reconsidering the previous request to intervene in the Banks case and take Banks to trial.Soicitor General reconsider intervention
Graham Mc Cready the informant had requested an intervention on 27 June 2013 during the ADC hearings but the Solicitor General said he would wait until Banks was committed to trial.Banks Solicitor General Intervention
A meeting has been held with the stakeholders of New Zealand Private Prosecution Service Limited and the company has advised the Solicitor General that the company consents to the intervention. The Solicitor General can use the considerable resources of the Crown to take Banks to trial.
This frees up NZPPS Ltd with its very meager resources to commence and bring other cases to the same point as the Banks case.
The next case for the prosecution Service is NZPPS LTD v Creser at the Wellington District Court on 22 October 2013 at 2:15 PM. It is important for media to continue their excellent work that they have done with the Banks case to keep the Attorney General from abusing the system by staying proceedings when the crown has a conflict of interest in the case.
The Judgement of Judge Gittos is attached as is the letter from the Solicitor General.Judgement Judge Gittos 16 Oct 2013
Graham Mc Cready agent for NZPPS Ltd
Read Judge Gittos decision Judgement Judge Gittos 16 Oct 2013
How it unfolded
3 May 2013
Open Letter to the NZ Solicitor-General, Michael Heron:
The ‘Evidential’ and ‘Public Interest’ tests as outlined in s6 of the Crown Law Prosecution
Guidelines, have arguably been met in the decision of Wellington District Court Judge Mill on 16 April 2013, in the matter of Graham Edward McCready (Informant) vs John Archibald Banks (Defendant) CRI – 2012-085-0009093 and CRI – 2012- 085- 007894:
Judge Mill’s decision is available here:
Both myself and Lisa Prager, made formal complaints to the NZ Police over this matter, as
outlined below, in this reply, dated 26 July 2012:
” COMPLAINT REGARDING HONOURABLE JOHN BANKS – MAYORAL ELECTIONS
RETURN – FILE NO: 120427/9334 REFERS
On 27 April 2012, you made a complaint to the Auckland City Police requesting they
investigate reports regarding the Hon. John Archibald Banks, CNZM QSO, that he submitted a
false donation return in respect to the Auckland City Council Mayoral election 2010 .
Specifically the letter of complaint referred to two donations in question:
1. A $15,000.00 donation allegedly made by Sky City to the former Auckland City Mayor John
Banks which did not show up as a donation in the return .
2. A donation of “Anonymous- radio ads” .
On Monday 30 April 2012 you made a further complaint in respect to the election expenses
donation return by Mr John Banks. Your complaint referred to media articles by Campbell Live
(27 April 2012) and the New Zealand Herald (28 April 2012) that discussed donations allegedly
made by Mr Dotcom to Mr Banks for his mayoral campaign .
In both complaints you allege that if the articles were correct then Mr Banks had breached
the Local Electoral Act 2001 in that a candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of
electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular….”
The NZ Police chose not to prosecute.
The significant and ongoing ‘public interest’ in this case is arguably referenced in the following
article in today’s NZ Herald:
Loss in court would cost Banks seat
By Isaac Davison @Isaac_Davison
5:30 AM Friday May 3, 2013
Lisa Prager and myself, Penny Bright, hereby support the following Memorandum of Informant,
dated 29 April 2013:
Referral to Solicitor-General to Intervene as Prosecutor
Please be reminded of the following statutory provision of the Local Electoral Act 2001:
6 Act binds Crown
This Act binds the Crown.
Please confirm at your earliest convenience that Crown Law will do their best to ensure that
‘justice is done and is seen to be done’, and ensure that the principle of ‘one law for all’, equally
applies to sitting Ministers of the Crown, by intervening as Prosecutor in this above-mentioned
Further evidence of public interest JOHN BANKS Application Media coverage Banks 8 May 2013
The John Banks Private Prosecution has been referred to the Solicitor General with a request that the Crown take over the prosecution and appear for the Informant when Banks is summoned to appear in the Auckland District Court sometime in May or early June 2013.
see the document here John Banks referral to Solicitor General
- The Police investigation of found that the defendant had transmitted an election return false in a material particular (the subject donations were not anonymous) and had sufficient evidence to charge him summarily under Section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act. However they were statutory barred from doing so under the provisions of the Summary Proceedings Act that required an Information to be filed within six months of the alleged offence. They also found that there was insufficient evidence that the defendant knew that the donations were not anonymous to charge him under Section 134(1) of the Act. For these reasons no Public prosecution was commenced
- On 7 November 2012 and again on 16 April 2013, Judge IG Mill found that there was sufficient evidence that the private prosecutor could adduce to establish a prima facie case against the defendant.
c. Referral to the Solicitor General
Given that the evidential barrier has been overcome and the Court has ordered the defendant to appear to answer to the Information, the prosecutor hereby refers the case to the Solicitor General for the Crown to continue the prosecution as a Public Prosecution.The prosecutor submits there is considerable public interest and support for this cause of action.
The District Court Memorandum served on the Solicitor General on 29 April 2013 is attached
Graham Mc Cready
The decision of Judge Mill is out read the full decison here Banks summoned on election return 19 4 13
he finishes up saying
I do not think: it can be said that the prosecution has no prospect of success. There is sufficient evidential foundation for a summons to issue. The provision for private prosecutions in our law is itself an important check on potential abuses of prosecutorial discretion conferred on the Executive: Gouriet v Union of Post Office Workers  AC 435 at 498, so the police decision not to prosecute cannot, in my view, strongly militate against issuing a summons in a private prosecution where the requirements for doing so are otherwise met.
[ 44] I agree that there will be significant media interest if the prosecution of Mr Banks goes ahead. However that would also have been the case if Mr Banks had been prosecuted by the Police or by the Crown. The likelihood of media interest
cannot be a ground for declining to allow a prosecution to proceed. In my estimation strong media interest indicates a strong public interest, which would tend to support the contention that it is appropriate for the case to be answered in open court.
[ 45] Likewise, the character of a proposed infom1ant or his or her personal wherewithal to successfully prosecute a privately brought charge cannot, in my opinion, influence the summons discretion. What is impotiant is whether the proposed informant is able to give substance to the allegations. If so, the informant is entitled to access to the courts.
[ 46] Accordingly for the reasons already given I authorize the issue of the sunm1ons and direct that it then be transferred to the Auckland District Court.
Congratulations Graeme from the team at Dodgy john has gone.com
Banks faces more counts
Act leader John Banks is facing two fresh charges in a private prosecution brought by political activist Graham McCready. The charges relate to Mr Banks’ role at investment company Huljich Wealth Management before he became an Act MP. ”
Written Submissions by Informant in Support of the Informations and of Issuing a Summons on the Proposed Charges
Wellington District Court stamped front cover of Written Submissions dated 19 November 2012 court acknowledgment
Graham McCready states that the Deputy Registrar ‘confirmed she would set them down for Banks to be Summons to appear on these two with the Local Elections Act charge on 11 December 2012 at 1:45. The Court will ensure the Police serve all three summonses.’
Graham McCready will be filling the same Securities Act Informations against against Don Brash on Wednesday 29 November.
DECISION OF JUDGE IG MILL [Re: Issue of Summons]
 In my view, if Mr McCready can present evidence that reflects these allegations then there is a sufficient case to be tested in Court.
 I therefore amend the information to be an indictable one and direct that a summons issue.
see full decision here McCready-Banks
Report of the Commerce Select Committee on Petition 2011/5 of Penelope Mary Bright and 307 others, which requests “that the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 “.
“The Commerce Committee has considered Petition 2011/5 of Penelope Mary Bright and 307 others, which requests “that the House conduct an urgent inquiry into the decisions regarding prosecutions relating to the Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009”, and has no matters to bring to the attention of the House.”
The Commerce Select Committee of the ‘Highest Court in the Land’ – has effectively decided that ‘one law for all’ does not apply to former and current ACT Party Leaders – Don Brash and John Banks?
How DODGY is that?
Could it be that yet again John Banks is being politically protected – given that 5 out of 9 Commerce Select Committee members are National MPs?
|Commerce||Member||Bakshi, Kanwaljit Singh||National Party, List|
|Commerce||Member||Borrows, Chester||National Party, Whanganui|
|Commerce||Deputy-Chairperson||Cosgrove, Clayton||Labour Party, List|
|Commerce||Member||Cunliffe, David||Labour Party, New Lynn|
|Commerce||Member||Curran, Clare||Labour Party, Dunedin South|
|Commerce||Member||Lotu-Iiga, Peseta Sam||National Party, Maungakiekie|
|Commerce||Member||Mathers, Mojo||Green Party, List|
|Commerce||Member||Mitchell, Mark||National Party, Rodney|
|Commerce||Chairperson||Young, Jonathan||National Party, New Plymouth|
Check out the attached evidence from the Finance Markets Authority (FMA) and ask yourself WHY – for a strict liability offence – the former Securities Commission FIVE times went to Crown Law for advice and FOUR times to an independent QC for advice – and ended up deciding NOT to prosecute John Banks or Don Brash as former fellow Directors of Huljich Wealth Management (NZ) Ltd?
BOTH John Banks and Don Brash equally signed Huljich Kiwisaver Scheme registered prospectuses dated 22 August 2008 and 18 September 2009 which contained untrue statements – A STRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE under Securities Act ..58(3) – but were never charged.
The excuses given by the SFO for not prosecuting John Banks and Don Brash are also rather fascinating – don’t you think?
Evidence considered by the commerce select committee was as follows and from