Screen Shot 2013-12-14 at 7.46.03 PM

Like father Like Son: The Story Of Another Of New Zealands Unwarranted Politically Wangled Name Suppressions.

Alex Banks

Alex Banks, a chip of the old block,  just like his old man and Paul Wicks barrister, thinks he’s better than New Zealands mere mortals when before the Courts. Whats even worse so did one of those half arsed community magistrates, not even a district court judge like Charles Blackie would be that stupid. The son of one of New Zealand’s most prominent leaders is being allowed to keep his drink driving charge a secret because publicity could have “extreme consequences” for his father -Yeah Right.


Update [5th May 2014, 01:08 hrs (CET)]:

The latest in the saga of the lucky boy with the “prominent” daddy unfolded this morning with New Zealand’s bullshit mainstream media trying to spin themselves and daddy out of the crap:

Fairfax NZ And The Art Of Political Spin & Complete Hypocrisy – “Leader’s son off the rails”


There is but one law for all, namely that law which governs all law, the law of our Creator, the law of humanity, justice, equity – the law of nature and of nations.

Edmund Burke

Here we have yet another case of “only in New Zealand” justice. LF have known the youths identity since he was first arrested, but we’ve been sitting and waiting for the Kiwi MSM to appeal the completely unwarranted name suppression granted to a very politically well connected youth. The story started in the small East Cape shit-hole of Gisborne. The town that lays claim to being New Zealands most easterly point and first to see the sun.

Gisborne can also lay claim to being New Zealands most corrupt town, thanks to its notorious police force and the bent cops that have been stationed there over the past four decades. In fact its the towns reputation for corruption that undoubtedly saw the aforementioned youths defense team successfully, and somewhat unusually, have the trial transferred out of the district and relocated to Auckland, courtesy of one of the bent circuit judges such as Tony Adeane DCJ. The media of course did question the sudden transfer, but being as thick as the local cops, and not particularly good students of history weren’t able to put the pieces together.

LF however have assets in Gisborne who reported at the time of his arrest that the youth in question was a young army recruit who had been in Gisborne when caught driving whilst well over the limit by the local plods. No doubt the local coal face cops responsible and Jeremy Muirs Gisborne Herald would have been rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of hanging a politicians son out to dry; but alas it was not to be, largely thanks to Gisbornes reputation, and that of its daily newspaper, the Gisborne Herald and their bad habit of prejudicing trials.

As aforesaid the matter was hurriedly transferred out of Gisborne and on arrival in Auckland was then shoved in in front of one of those creatures the New Zealand justice system likes to call “Community Magistrates”. Just why a community magistrate was handed the job is unclear, but LF suspects that they where given the job because none of the real judges, the district Court Judges, wanted the job of dishing out politically motivated name suppressions; the fix was in. The ‘fix’ being that it had been predetermined by political fixers that name suppression would be granted.

Now the local press, apart from a little flutter around the time name suppression was granted, have done sweet fuck all in this case to look after the “public interest”. Why haven’t they appealed this so called community magistrates decision, in fact why haven’t the crown appealed? Fairfax’s Amy Maas led the charge with her piece ‘Teen wants off hook because of famous dad’:

The son of one of New Zealand’s most prominent leaders is being allowed to keep his drink driving charge a secret because publicity could have “extreme consequences” for his father.

The teenager pleaded guilty to driving with excess breath alcohol in the Auckland District Court last week, but will apply for a discharge without conviction.

He was originally charged in Gisborne in October after being caught driving while nearly twice the legal drink driving limit.

It is not clear why his case is now being heard in Auckland.

The teenager’s lawyer, Paul Wicks, applied for interim name suppression claiming that if his client was named in the media it would have “extreme consequences for his father” who is a public figure.

The name suppression will be readdressed later this month.

Wicks told the Sunday Star- Times it was inappropriate to comment on what grounds he would be applying for a discharge because the case is still in front of the courts.

Auckland-based specialist drink drive lawyer Stuart Blake said it was uncommon for people on drink driving charges to seek name suppression.

“Name suppression is normally appropriate in cases where publishing the defendant’s name would likely cause undue hardship to a victim, endanger a person’s safety, create a real risk of prejudicing a fair trial or that it might cause extreme hardship to the defendant and or his family,” he said.

Blake said in cases such as these there was normally no risk of endangering a person’s safety and because most matters were dealt with by judge alone, there was little risk of prejudice to a fair trial.

He added that he advised his clients that pursuing name suppression – especially for a charge of drink driving where it was uncommon – could elicit the scrutiny they wanted to avoid in the first place.

“It’s human nature, when we’re told we are not allowed to know something we instantly want to know what the secret is.”

Earlier this year, a judge’s decision to discharge and grant name suppression to polocrosse player Casey Anne Mullany, 29, was widely criticised. Mullany, who has played for New Zealand internationally, was originally discharged and allowed to keep her name secret on the basis that a conviction could affect her ability to compete overseas.

Police appealed the decision and it was overturned in the High Court last month. Mullany was disqualified from driving from six months and name suppression was overturned.

A range of high-profile New Zealanders, such as actor Robyn Malcolm and Colin Carruthers, QC, had been named after drink-driving offences.


Of course Fairfax are somewhat adept at pulling the wool over their readerships eyes, as are their competitor APN’s New Zealand Herald. No surprise that Fairfax’s Amy Maas makes a few noises on behalf of her employer, she’s done it before, and then they all take a step back and let the status quo and corruption prevail.

The fact is that the youth arrested in Gisborne for drink driving (D.I.C) is the adopted son of John Banks, ex Government Minister and close political alley of Prime Minister John Key. Of course thats how it was when the young bloke was arrested in October last year. But things had changed a little by the time Amy Maas (she’s always a late arrival at parties), had eventually got around to writing her story, three months later, on the 8th December 2013.

So just why was it that it took Fairfax three months to report on the arrest and charges? Well far be it for LF to appear cynical but the likely reason is that, somewhat ironically, the accused had yet to be granted name suppression. LF knows for a fact that both Fairfax and APN were aware of the arrest and charges in October, so one doesn’t have to think to hard when considering why it was that neither paper published the story in October.

Maas should be ashamed of herself for going along with this little political game of “hide the sausage”, aka fucking the New Zealand public. A game designed to keep Fairfax and APN readers and fellow citizens in the dark, by concealing the putrid machinations of the National party coalition Government.

As already said, at the time the Banks junior was arrested in October 2013, his father John Banks was a close and valued asset for John Key and the National Party Government and Banks and Key were obviously confident that they would be able to ‘handle’ Graham McCready’s allegations of corruption and the private prosecution.

However in the intervening period before the matter was called in Aucklands district court Banks had suffered a series of set backs thanks to justice and anti corruption crusader Graham McCready. In fact on the 3rd December 2013, just 3 working days prior to Amy Maas’s Sunday Star Times article on the granting of name suppression, both APN’s New Zealand Herald and Fairfax’s Dominion Post ran articles reporting that John Banks had, despite Banks political bluster and McCready’s earlier setbacks, been committed to stand trial on corruption charges:

Act Party leader John Banks will stand trial for allegedly filing a false electoral return.

High Court judge Justice Paul Heath delivered his decision today, remanding Banks at large until a callover later this month.

Banks resigned from his ministerial portfolios after Auckland District Court judge Phil Gittos said the “evidence clearly shows that Mr Banks was aware of the source” of donations from Kim Dotcom and SkyCity and could “not properly” have declared them as anonymous on his electoral return for his failed campaign for the Auckland mayoralty in 2010.

Judge Gittos said there was enough evidence to commit Banks to trial on a charge under the Local Electoral Act – which he wrongly called Local Elections Act – after the private prosecution by retired accountant Graham McCready.

The case was taken over by Solicitor-General Michael Heron QC but the Act Party leader filed an urgent appeal to the High Court at Auckland to review the decision.

Rejecting the appeal, Justice Heath said he was not satisfied there was “any fundamental flaw in the process adopted by the District Court judge”.

“I accept that the consequences of the committal order on Mr Banks are serious,” Justice Heath continued.

“Anyone in Mr Banks’ position would be concerned about facing trial for an offence that carried a maximum sentence of imprisonment, if the charge were proved.”

However, he concluded: “Mr Banks’ position in not materially different from any person in good standing in the community who is charged with a serious criminal offence.

“In the absence of any fundamental problem with the decision to commit, on evidential sufficiency grounds, reputational factors are not sufficient for the court to intervene by way of judicial review.”


So there is little wonder that Banks juniors counsel Paul Wicks, who John Banks has known since at least 2009 when Wicks defended Banks socialite friend Lynne Carter, submitted that by allowing the accused to be named;

“it would have “extreme consequences for his father” who is a public figure”


Alex will soon to be sitting in, not a parliamentary seat, a courtroom dock like his father?

Alex will soon to be sitting in the hot seat, not a parliamentary seat, just like his conniving daddy?

According to Amy Maas Banks Juniors lawyer Paul Wicks advised the Sunday Star – Times that:

“it was inappropriate to comment on what grounds he would be applying for a discharge because the case is still in front of the courts.”

Now of course Wicks will do his best to obtain a discharge without conviction for his client. After all Banks junior is a soldier in the New Zealand Army, and any conviction would of course put pay to his advancement, in fact it could arguably result in a dishonourable discharge. Whats more  both Paul Wicks and Amy Maas mast have both been aware of Banks juniors prior form when it came to problem drinking and the consequence he bore some responsibility for. That history is just as likely the reason behind Paul Wicks application for name suppression as is his fathers political status or for that matter Banks seniors alleged corruption court room whoes.

Banks juniors trial may well be judge alone, and that may be a good thing as a judge is often more forgiving than a jury. That fact is reflected in his lawyer, Wicks, application. Wicks knew full that if Banks junior were to be named, the public, may not be as understanding, or for that matter forgiving, of his obvious problem with alcohol abuse as perhaps a judge might; especially given Banks juniors history, as elsewhere reported in the media – ‘Banks’ son egged on boy who died – report

A 16-year-old who died of alcohol poisoning earlier this year was reportedly egged on to drink by the son of Auckland Mayor John Banks. 
Witnesses who saw Kings College student James Webster on the night he died say he was urged to keep drinking by fellow student Alex Banks, One News reported.

Mr Webster died in May from alcohol poisoning.

John Banks has fronted up to the youth’s parents, and said it was important he stand and “be counted” over the death.

“This has got nothing to do with my public job. This has got all to do with being a father,” Mr Banks told One News.

John Banks, inset, says he has fronted up to the parents of James Webster, the 16-year-old who died from alcohol poisoning in May

Mr Banks said following James Webster’s death he grounded his son and sent him on a first aid course.

“He now knows and can clearly recognise that when someone’s in trouble with alcohol, he calls 111. If that had happened on that particular night, James Webster would still be with us today.”

Although around 25 adults were at the party where James died, few have faced up to the Webster family, his parents told One News.

James’ father, Charles Webster, said the boy who allegedly provided James with alcohol should admit he had done something wrong.

“If they felt they’ve done something wrong, saying they’ve done something wrong and standing up like a man would be a brave and courageous thing to do,” he said.


First aid course? Really John Bank MP?  Call us old fashioned, or enlightened therapists, or a bunch of Australian cunts if you like, but we would have thought little Alex much more in need of a holiday in tropical Northern NSW, some out of the way rehab, where he was forced to confront his demons, obvious problem with substance abuse, and perhaps a few underlying”father issues“.

Historically, John Banks has of course been one of those homophobic, bible bashing, children deserve families that have a “mom and dad” type arsehole politicians who has used the press, television, and radio, to espouse his bigoted, twisted, and more often than not, out of touch beliefs; one of them being that parents need to take responsibility for their children, and yet in this case, when push has come to shove, Banks has yet again proven himself to be a self serving slimy hypocrite, a gutless fuckwit of the worst order.

Barrister, Paul Wicks, a side kick of the now deceased John Haig QC, is no stranger to dodgy court antics, especially name suppression applications for bent journos, dodgy car dealers and criminals. Wicks also represented TVNZ cameraman Mark Chamberlain who was hell bent on avoiding having to give evidence in a serious case of corporate sponsored odometer fraud, but thats another story.

Maas also quoted lawyer Stuart Blake, a drink drive specialist, who claimed to have offered his own clients this sage advice:

“….he advised his clients that pursuing name suppression – especially for a charge of drink driving where it was uncommon – could elicit the scrutiny they wanted to avoid in the first place.

“It’s human nature, when we’re told we are not allowed to know something we instantly want to know what the secret is.”

It’s not advice that seems to have been heeded by either the New Zealand media or the Banks family for that matter.

As for New Zealand’s so called main stream media, as aforesaid, where was the much needed appeal, the decision granting name suppression was by no means just, equitable, or for that matter in the public interest, and it needed appealing, but wasn’t. Whats more, as Amy Maas noted in her piece of the 8th December 2013:

“The name suppression will be readdressed later this month”

So the end of December 2013 has well and truly come and gone, yet not a single report on the issue or outcome, why exactly is that? Perhaps they’ve purchased their own bullshit, in that they too now believe they’ve been successful in sweeping it under the rug.

Now thats not the sort of result that any other young New Zealander could even hope to expect in the circumstance so why is Master Banks afforded this anonymity and apparent leniency, how can this even be considered justice? Where exactly, in this nefarious political and quasi judicial behaviour, is the notion of “one Law for all”

LF believes that knowledge is power, so who exactly are these so called “Community Magistrates”, aka fuckwits? Well according to the New Zealand Justice Departments website the community magistrates appointed for the Auckland region were:

• Una Rebecca Ewert, of Newmarket
• Philip Greenbank, of Papatoetoe
• Dianne Hale, of Devonport
• Janet Holmes, of Devonport
• Lauolefale Lemalu, of Manukau
• Lavinia Nathan, of Whangaparaoa
• Joanna Sihamu, of Remuera
• Fenella Thomas, of Laingholm

So who amongst them was the lone individual responsible for facilitating this political name suppression? Pigs arse, it not about name suppression its all about political corruption, nothing less, and whoever was behind it was needs to be hung drawn and quartered. and if evidence of a relationship with John Banks can be established those responsible should also stand trial along side John Banks.


John Banks to stand trial

John Banks to Step Down as ACT Leader, MP for Epsom

John Banks resigns as Minister

John Banks’ political future questioned as trial to go ahead

John Banks trial: Decision reserved

MP John Banks attempts to avoid trial

Teen wants off hook because of famous dad

Banks in tears at teen death inquest

Banks’ son egged on boy who died – report

Hotel bans socialite for acting like ‘country bumpkin’

Banks denies voicing anti-gay rhetoric

Related articles

Enhanced by Zemanta

Categorised in: , ,

No Comments

  • When the Crown and the defence are in cahoots what chance the truth gentlemen. John Banks is a little short arsed homophobe that had to “adopt” children. I thinks he is actually asexual – in that he loves to love himself, a bit like “hank” in me, myself and Irene.

  • Harry Stottle says:

    The suppression order was, presumably, made under under S.200 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (ammended). That section states a court may make an order only if the court is satisfied that publication would be likely to cause extreme hardship to the person charged with THE OFFENCE or any person connected to that person. The words ”the offence” are not, presumably, incidental to the meaning of the section. In other words an application for a suppression order must be made in relation to an offence of some sort. In this case the offence is a Category 2 offence as defined under S.72 of the Act. S.5 of the Act defines court as ”a court presided over by a judicial officer with authority to exercise the court’s juridiction in respect of the matter” – the matter here being a charge of committing a category 2 offence and an application by the accused for a suppression order in relation to that charge. S.356 of the Act defines the jurisdiction of Community Magistrates. There is no mention of Category 2 offences in that section. Community Magistrates have no jurisdiction to decide Category 2 cases or matters related to them. They have restricted sentencing powers only under S.357. I would submit that the granting of the suppression order by a Community Magistrate is ultra vires and should be challenged on those grounds. Who nicked my medals?

    • Very Well spotted Harry Stottle, straight to the front of class, you get 5 gold stars. This case is just like the decision of Blackie DCJ in the Blomfield v Slater case – want of jurisdiction – hence our question, why was there no appeal? What were they trying to conceal? One of William shakespeare’s oft used lines springs to mind, think Denmark, or should that now be changed to New Zealand!

      • Harry Stottle says:

        Yes, only the deliberately obtuse would fail to realise that there is something very rotten in 100% Pureland. Putridland more like. The courts in the land of our enforced exile have made it clear that suppression orders may not be imposed for the comfort and feelings of defendants but only in cases where open justice would frustrate or render impracticable the administration of justice. A much higher bar than individual extreme hardship.

  • O for Owesome

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: