Amanda Banks succeeds in John’s appeal

The conviction against John Banks for filing an incorrect electoral return has been overturned by the court of appeal, largely due to the efforts of his wife Amanda to clear her own name.

NZ Herald reported Wife clears Banks’ name:

The Court of Appeal yesterday overturned former Act leader Mr Banks’ conviction for filing a false electoral return, charges which ended his parliamentary career.

A jubilant Mr Banks paid tribute to his wife who he said had been a hero for her part in clearing his name.

Amanda Banks’ “obsessive” detective work saw her husband John Banks’ electoral fraud conviction quashed yesterday and answered a High Court judge’s doubts over her honesty.

Mr Banks was convicted in the High Court this year after failing to disclose donations from Kim Dotcom to his Auckland Mayoralty campaign in 2010.

Crucially, the High Court’s Justice Edwin Wylie believed testimony given by Dotcom’s wife Mona over that of Mrs Banks about what was said at a lunch where both were present and at which Dotcom said donations were discussed.

Mr Banks’ appeal introduced affidavits from two US-based businessmen who he says were at that lunch. The pair – David Schaeffer and Jeffrey Karnes – both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.

The Court of Appeal’s Justices Ellen France, John Wild and Forrest Miller said that if the new evidence had been accepted in the High Court trial “it likely would have changed the outcome”. The Court of Appeal’s decision notes that Mrs Banks “was stung by the judge’s opinion of her reliability”.

“She became quite obsessed, as she puts it, with identifying the two Americans.

“She recalled that a transpacific communications cable had been discussed at the lunch and scoured news articles on the topic, eventually finding one which mentioned that Mr Dotcom had endorsed such a project and was trying to organise a group of investors to fund it.”

Mrs Banks’ research also identified the second businessman and Mr Banks’ lawyers contacted the two men and secured sworn affidavits from them.

The trial has taken a heavy toll on Banks – it wrecked is political career – and on both John and Amanda who say the pressure contributed significantly to their marriage breaking up.

The Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial – but say the new evidence would likely have overturned the outcome of the case.

The original trial judge put the credibility of Dotcom and his wife Mona ahead of the credibility of the Banks and this seems to be a major factor behind him finding Banks guilty – apparently incorrect or false claims swung the trial and the judge guessed incorrectly who wasn’t telling the truth.

A re-trial would add further hardship to Banks but he may think it could be worth it if it further clears his and his wife’s names.

This has been a major legal wrangle over the often fudgy world of political donations – it seems to have been driven by politically motivation – to take down the Government by removing Bank’s support from the last term coalition.

Bank’s resignation from Parliament was too late to cause major problems,

Dotcom went on to finance and set up a party with a main aim being to get John Key and National out of Government.

Politics is often a dirty game, and there’s some very dirty looking things swirling around this case.

How does signing off an electoral return after a failed campaign compare to bringing down the Government?

Leave a comment

13 Comments

  1. Phil Wild

     /  29th November 2014

    It appears to me that too many “journalists” are overly occupied with expressing their own slanted anti opinion rather than simply outlining facts.

    Reply
    • I think that has become a major concern, especially in politics. Too many journalists want to be players and winners rather than be reporters.

      Reply
  2. Ian McKinnon

     /  29th November 2014

    Too many journalists have agendas that leave a lot to be desired. When one listens to Slippery Soper, it causes concern, but hell, what about Espiners, Hickey, Vance, et al?

    Reply
    • Phil Wild

       /  29th November 2014

      Yes, indeed – my comment came from reading the first part of Garner this morning. Why should he be telling John Key who he should and should not be communicating with.
      I did not bother reading any further.

      Reply
  3. Mike C

     /  29th November 2014

    Well, it’s official, Spanish Bride sucks. LOL.

    Reply
  4. Kittycatkin

     /  29th November 2014

    All right-what does Spanish Bride mean ???

    Reply
  5. Kittycatkin

     /  29th November 2014

    I see that Dottycon is now trying to change the date of the lunch meeting…does this mean that he and Mrs D were both mistaken (cough) or committing perjury before ?

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  29th November 2014

      Mr and Mrs DotCon made the big mistake of committing perjury in the first trial, and now they seem willing and able to do it for a second time. Gotta give ’em both ten out of ten for doing their best to hold onto the illegal proceeds of their crimes, and trying to keep their arses out of prison.

      I feel so sorry for their children, becos they have done nothing to deserve this shit that their parents chose to inflict upon the poor wee little vulnerable mites 😦

      Reply
      • Proceeds of what crimes, exactly?

        Reply
      • Kittycatkin

         /  30th November 2014

        Fraud, perjury, making false declarations, copyright theft, computer hacking-all crimes, as far as I know, UglyT. I may be wrong, of course, and they may be quite legal activities.As may dangerous driving at twice the speed limit and terrifying horses, but I was under the impression that that was also a crime.

        Reply
  6. Kittycatkin

     /  30th November 2014

    Krim must have sworn on oath that the meeting took place on date X, which wasn’t in dispute-and surely one would check this beforehand, if one wasn’t sure of the exact date. If this was wrong, then either everyone else made the same mistake or they’re all lying and risking charges of perjury-unlikely, I imagine. Remember the hoohah over the helicopter ride ? John Banks owned, or used to own, his own helicopter, so one helicopter ride is hardly going to stick in his mind when he was doing it all the time-it’s not like the rest of us remembering their one and only flight in one forever !

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s