John Banks police investigation 'thorough and robust' - IPCA

The police investigation into allegations former MP John Banks failed to properly declare electoral donations was “thorough and robust” and not subject to political interference, the Independent Police Conduct Authority says.

A report just released by the IPCA says it received five complaints, from individuals not personally involved in the matter, about the police investigation into Mr Banks.

But chairman Sir David Carruthers says it has found the police investigation was “comprehensive and thorough.”

In April, 2012, police received complaints alleging Mr Banks failed to properly declare details of donations as required under the Local Electoral Act.

The police conducted an investigation but decided not to prosecute Mr Banks. However, a private prosecution led to him being found guilty of knowingly filing a false electoral return in June last year.

This was later appealed and the conviction set aside by the Court of Appeal in November last year, with a retrial ordered.

Last week, however, Mr Banks was acquitted of knowingly filing a false electoral return.

A Court of Appeal panel of Justices Ellen France, Forrest Miller and John Wild also cancelled the retrial order and said Crown Law had committed “a serious error of process” when it did not advance new evidence now known as the “Butler memorandum."

The IPCA says it has found the approach the police took in its investigation was reasonable.

“The authority is satisfied, from its inquiry and interviews, that there was no interference or pressure on the investigation team from the police executive or politically,” Sir David says.

“Police concluded that they could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that at the time Mr Banks signed the return he did so knowing that the particular donations were falsely recorded as anonymous.”

Earlier this month, the IPCA said it had completed its investigation and report but was unable to release its findings because of the ongoing court proceedings, which have now concluded.

A “stuffup”
Last week, legal expert Andrew Geddis said Crown Law should pay for the “stuffup” that misled the court in the John Banks’ trial.

The Otago University law professor says the attorney-general and solicitor-general had abstracted themselves from the case, handing it to an individual who “stuffed up quite badly.”

Mr Banks told media last week he is taking legal advice about any further action or costs bid but says there is no compensation for what he has been through.

Mr Geddis says the former MP should at least get back court costs for what he spent going to the Court of Appeal but compensation beyond that was unlikely.

The law professor’s view is that a case for perjury against Mr and Mrs Dotcom, whose evidence changed throughout the case, was unlikely.

“The problem with perjury is that you have to prove they lied, rather than got things mixed up in their brain.”