Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster: C.A. 95/81New Zealand. Court of Appeal
History
Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster: C.A. 95/81
New Zealand. Court of Appeal
Air New Zealand; Aircraft accidents; New Zealand. Royal Commission to Inquire into the Crash on Mount Erebus, Antarctica, of a DC10 Aircraft Operated by Air New Zealand Limited
Before turning to the evidence given by First Officer Rhodes during his
second appearance it is worthwhile making a preliminary comment. No
complaint has ever been made by Mr Chippindale about a missing blue
envelope or papers within it. If Captain Gemmell had been entrusted with
such a mission which he had failed to discharge Mr Chippindale would
seem to be the first person who would want to know why. He himself gave
evidence before the Royal Commission for a period of ten days and during
all that time he was never asked about this matter. Nor was he recalled
to deal with it after it had been raised with Captain Gemmell or after
First Officer Rhodes gave his further evidence. That fact alone might be
thought sufficient to dispose of the matter. And in the end the
Commissioner himself decided that neither this nor other evidence could
justify a finding against Captain Gemmell that he "recovered documents
from Antarctica which were relevant to the fatal flight, and which he
did not account for to the proper authorities".
It is necessary to describe all this because the second appearance of
First Officer Rhodes resulted in a finding in paragraph 348 of the Royal
Commission Report which reflects seriously upon the conduct of another
executive officer of the airline, Captain Eden. The paragraph is another
of those challenged in the present proceedings.
It seems that First Officer Rhodes agreed to give evidence on the second
occasion in order to remove any false impression that he himself doubted
the integrity of Captain Gemmell. The following extract from the
transcript explains the position (a condensed version appears in
paragraph 347 of the Report):
"You've already given evidence and stated your qualification. I
think you have offered to give some supplementary evidence relating
to activity at the Erebus crash site ... Our discussion with Capt.
Eden last Friday indicated this would be appreciated.
I think just as Capt. Gemmell was there representing the co. you
were there as a rep. of ALPA.... Thats correct.
May we take it that you worked in conjunction with Capt. Gemmell
and other members of the team involved.... Correct.
And in so doing you were present at the crash site with Capt.
Gemmell.... No we had different tasks as I was in the area with
Capt. Gemmell at some stages.
So far as your observations are concerned what would you have to
say regarding Capt. Gemmell's conduct and behaviour in the course
of his duties there.... I have no reason to doubt Capt. Gemmell in
any way shape or form.
Have you ever suggested otherwise to anybody.... I have not."
Then he was cross-examined by counsel for the Association whose witness
he had been earlier. He was asked about Captain Gemmell's work at the
actual scene of the disaster and his explanation about that matter is
reflected in the following question and answer:
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account