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 — John Shaqi
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
"Captain Eden is at present the director of flight operations for
the airline. He appeared in the witness box to be a strong-minded
and aggressive official. It seemed clear from this further
production of First Officer Rhodes as a witness that it had been
suggested to him by Captain Eden that he should either make a
direct allegation against Captain Gemmell or else make no
allegation at all, and that since First Officer Rhodes seemed to
have no direct evidence in his possession, he was therefore obliged
to give the answer which Captain Eden had either suggested or
directed. However, First Officer Rhodes was not entirely
intimidated because as will be observed from the evidence just
quoted, he insisted on saying that Captain Gemmell had brought an
envelope containing documents back to Auckland."
Those statements are in no way related to the assessment of Captain
Eden's evidence or as Captain Eden as a witness. They are observations
that Captain Eden had attempted to influence or direct the evidence to
be given by First Officer Rhodes by a process of intimidation. Counsel
for First Officer Rhodes' own association had made no suggestion to that
effect. Nor is there any hint by First Officer Rhodes himself that he
was present as anything but a voluntary witness. The answer he gave to
the opening question would not seem to support suspicions of
intimidation. And that answer is itself followed by quite a generous
tribute to Captain Gemmell. But the reputation of Captain Eden and the
support given Captain Gemmell is dismissed by a finding of intimidation.
It should be said as well that although Captain Eden himself appeared to
give evidence three days later not a word was said to him by anybody to
suggest that earlier he had been guilty of attempting to intimidate a
witness.
Specific documents
To the extent that the Royal Commission Report has pointed to any
particular classes of documentary material that did not reach the
Inquiry the list is not a long one. It comprises--
1. Unidentified papers within the blue envelope--No complaint about
this was ever made by Mr Chippindale as we have mentioned.
2. Papers given to First Officer Cassin as briefing material--It
has been explained that if any complaint could be made about this
matter it would affect Captain Crosbie, the unnamed "employee of
the airline" referred to in paragraph 52. It was he who went to the
Cassin home for compassionate reasons as the spokesman for the
Airline Pilots Association. He denies ever receiving the material.
Even if he had, the Report has not challenged the conduct of any of
the line pilots. This matter would seem to be irrelevant.
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