Thursday, December 5, 2013

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT ........

my reading of Section 224 of the Electoral Act here would suggest that  David Cunliffe, in tweeting what he did last Saturday, may have engaged in a 'Corrupt Practice', defined as "means any act declared by this Act to be a corrupt practice" which, on conviction, provides for a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years and a fine not exceeding $40,000 in which case he would forfeit his seat in accordance with the provisions of Section 55(1)(d) of the Act.

Alternatively what he did might be considered an 'Illegal Act' which, on conviction, attracts a lesser penalty of between $10,000 and $40,000 in which case he would not forfeit his seat.

The alacrity with which Cunliffe ditched the tweet and his apology suggests he knows he f****d up big time.     That may count in his defence if it comes trial.   In any case, not a good look from the Leader of the Opposition.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am correcting you. First, don't you mean section 224?

Judge Holden said...

That depends on what the Act declares to be a corrupt practice, which is?

You guys are getting all hysterical and shrieky again. Just settle down eh? It's not as if he took a helicopter out to a dodgy millionaire's house and solicited a massive donation from him and then lied about it repeatedly or anything. That's what tories do. He allegedly sent a Tweet, towel down and relax.

Watcher said...

Did it really have any impact on the outcome?
Doubtful, voters are more savvy than that.

The Veteran said...

Anon ... typo, 224.

Holden ... doesn't matter. It appears he broke the law. I agree that in the great scheme of things it is probably a minor breech and therefore an 'illegal' rather than a 'corrupt' practice.
But it does concern me that your Leader doesn't know electoral law ... after all, he's not exactly a new kid on the block is he?

Watcher ... by your thinking Banks shouldn't have been prosecuted either ... what he did had no effect on the outcome of the Mayoral race.

Graeme Edgeler said...

You are wrong.

The offence alleged is against section 197 of the Electoral Act. That offence is not declared to be a corrupt practice. It is also not declared to be an illegal practice.

The Veteran said...

Graeme ... thank you for that. So, Cunliffe, if prosecuted and convicted, could face a fine of up to $20k although pigs might fly too.

Whatever, it's still a bad look for him to be so ignorant of the Act ... although perhaps he wasn't!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

He's the leader of NZ's oldest, once-largest, (and assuredly most corrupt) political party.

That must vastly increase the severity of the offence.

Corrupt practice. 2 years jail. Out of parliament. Banned from voting.

I just wish the Electoral Act applied the same penalty to the political party concerned

Baxter said...

It shows that he is corrupt and dishonest. It defies belief that he did not know he was breaking the law.

Judge Holden said...

"It shows that he is corrupt and dishonest. It defies belief that he did not know he was breaking the law."

I know, right? I mean taking a helicopter ride to Dotcom's mansion, soliciting massive sums of money, telling Dotcom to split the cheques, and then lying about the whole thing and signing a false return. Prison you reckon? Gotta be.
OTOH; a tweet. Keep shrieking, losers.

Anonymous said...

Drudge - there is quite a difference in behaviour. Banks behaved in that manner to comply with the daft law created by your beloved liarbour whereas Cunliffe outright broke the law.

Knowingly or otherwise doesn't matter - ignorance is not a defence. Although for the left it is a way of life...

Judge Holden said...

"Banks behaved in that manner to comply with the daft law..."

Perhaps he had covered hi fat ass when he told Dotcom to split those cheques. Turns out he might be wrong about that. Nonetheless, I love the way you excuse his lying and hypocrisy. Classic tory behaviour I guess.

Allan said...

Banks has integrity, Cunnliffe would not know what that is. He is a 2 faced clown who will promise or say anything if he thinks that it will get him media coverage or a vote. He is a shameless fraud and has no credibility whatsoever. Mind you the same could be said for 95 percent of the Liabour caucas.

Judge Holden said...

"Banks has integrity..."

As much as any tory, I guess. Still a corrupt liar though. Still, at least he didn't send a tweet!