3 Holer,
[QUOTE]In their judgement, delivered on 20 Oct 1983, the five Law Lords of the Privy Council dismissed the commissioner's 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 intended 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's chief executive, had ever existed.[/QUOTe
That taken from John King publication. I think it shows very clearly what the New Zealand Court of Appeal, and the Privy Council thought of Justice Mahons methods and utterances.
2. Mahon found during his inquiry; “The palpably false sections of evidence which I heard could not have been the result of mistake, or faulty recollection. They originated, I am compelled to say, in a pre-determined plan of deception. They were very clearly part of an attempt to conceal a series of disastrous administrative blunders and so… I am forced reluctantly to say that I had to listen to an orchestrated litany of lies.”
As long as you and others keep on quoting the views of Mahon, that have been completely disagreed with by his peers and superiors in the law world, and have been printed in this forum many times, then one is left wondering as to the point of trying to establish fact. You may disagree with the Appeal Court of New Zealand, and disagree with the finding of the Privy Council, but you can go to no higher court to challenge them.