Erebus 25 years on

[prospector]

Re: Erebus 25 years on

saga,

I fail to see where you could use the word strident for any of my replies. However, in answer to your assertion that Mahon was correct in his treatment of witnesses I put forward the following from "New Zealand Tragedies, Aviation" by John King.

"That last point was seized upon by the Air New Zealand people accused by Mahon of taking part in the conspiracy, the accusation receiving such widespread publicity both in New Zealand and overseas, and the $150,000 fine being such a large amount that it could not be ignored. Because the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the cause of the disaster were limited in scope, BEING LEGALLY AN OPINION AND NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT, they could not be appealed in legal terms, unlike the Office of Air Accidents Investigation report, which remains the sole official account--and has never been officially challenged. The airlines board of directors resolved to pursue its single option to protect the integrity of its employees, to challenge the conspiracy finding by way of a judicial revue.

Because of the public importance of the review proceedings and the fact that a High Court judge was involved, Air New Zealand applied for the normal High Court hearing to be bypassed and the case was heard by the five permanent judges of the New Zealand Court of Appeal in early October 1981. Their judgement was delivered just before Christmas 1981 and held that Mahon, in making the findings of criminal conspiracy, had exceeded his terms of reference. He also committed breaches of natural justice by failing to inform the affected witnesses of the charges he proposed to level against them, thus depriving them of the opportunity to defend themselves.

The Court of Appeal addressed several aspects that were brought to the Commissioners notice during the enquiry but ignored by him. The five judges unanimously quashed, the $150,000 costs order, imposed as punishment for the alleged conspiracy"

I do believe that covers what his peers in the Appeal Court, and later the Privy council, thought of this matter and his findings, in the matter of witnesses, were in fact overturned.

Prospector