Prospector said:
If you are so convinced Mahon was correct, how do you explain the following from the Privy Council???
In their judgment, delivered on 20 Oct 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy Council dismissed the commissioners appeal and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeal decision, which set aside the costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They demolished his case item by item, including Exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be used for the purpose of navigation", and went even further, saying there was no clear proof on which to base a finding that a plan of deception, led by the company chief executive had ever existed.
They demolished his case item by item, including Exhibit 164 which they said could not "be understood by any experienced pilot to be used for the purpose of navigation",
Surely that from the highest law court available should tell you something, but perhaps not.
C’mon Prospector, you are starting to lose the plot. You can do better than that. Please try to back up your assertions with some evidence.
The privy council did not demolish any of Justice Mahon’s conclusions as to the cause of the accident.
Yes, the Privy council did uphold the Court of Appeal decision which set aside the costs order against the airline, on the grounds that Mahon had committed clear breaches of natural justice. They thought that the “organized litany of lies” went a bit too far.
However, the privy council appeal verdict did not overturn any of Justice Mahon’s conclusions as to who was to blame for the disaster.
The privy council said
(my comment in brackets)
836
The Royal Commission Report (Justice Mahon’s report) convincingly clears Captain Collins and First Officer Cassin of any suggestion that negligence on their part had in any way contributed to the disaster. That is unchallenged. (The conclusion of the Privy Council)
And
their Lordships have very reluctantly felt compelled to hold that, in the various respects to which their Lordships have referred, the judge failed to adhere to those rules of natural justice that are appropriate to an inquiry of the kind that he was conducting and that in consequence it was not open to him to make the finding that he did in paragraph 377 (the organized litany of lies bit) of his report.
You may care to go back to #88 in the thread where I tried to explain this to you before in greater detail.