The decision in R v John Archibald Banks is now available online. In between tasks at work, we are slowly reading through it.
But we've just come across this paragraph:
You can't escape the irony here. In his desire to be transparent, and to comply with the "spirit of the law", John Banks chose not to hide his donations behind a secret trust. On the other hand, Len Brown hid almost $500,000 worth of donations behind the secret and previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust.
Len Brown wasn't worried about the "spirit of the law", and hid his donations in a manner that no one will ever know who his backers were. John Banks has clearly erred in not declaring the Dotcom donation, and will pay a high price. His desire for transparency was commendable, even though some of his decisions were poor ones.
Mr Banks is hoist by his own petard.
But we've just come across this paragraph:
You can't escape the irony here. In his desire to be transparent, and to comply with the "spirit of the law", John Banks chose not to hide his donations behind a secret trust. On the other hand, Len Brown hid almost $500,000 worth of donations behind the secret and previously unknown New Auckland Council Trust.
Len Brown wasn't worried about the "spirit of the law", and hid his donations in a manner that no one will ever know who his backers were. John Banks has clearly erred in not declaring the Dotcom donation, and will pay a high price. His desire for transparency was commendable, even though some of his decisions were poor ones.
Mr Banks is hoist by his own petard.
