FIRE INQUIRY

Press, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 25450, 23 March 1948, Page 4

FIRE INQUIRY

—- WITNESSES TOTAL 128

HEARING MAY LAST ANOTHER 25 DAYS Originally expected to last three weeks, the inquiry into Ballantyne’s fire by the Royal Commission has now occupied 25 sitting days, a number which is likely to be doubled before all evidence and submissions are heard. So far, 128 witnesses have been called by the Crown and several more have yet to be called. An estimate has been made that no fewer than 15 days will be taken to hear the evidence to be called by counsel for the various parties represented before the commission. With such a great mass of evidence to deal with, final submissions by counsel are expected to be long. Already 1874 foolscap pages have been filled with notes of the opening address and evidence. The wor.dage is about 600,000. The four members of the commission and counsel are supplied with the notes, which how fill six massive volumes. The recording has been done by a team of three shorthand writers, one being Miss Yvonne Raaff. seconded few the inquiry from the Transport Department in Christchurch. Hansard reporters have been among the recorders, who work in half-hour shifts. So far, their only relief has been the reading of three statements. The notes are transcribed and cyclostyled in an office near the Provincial Council Chamber and are distributed in sections. Air counsel are having their notes of evidence bound. Nearly 400 persons were interviewed by the police—many of them were also questioned by representatives of parties interested in the inquiry—and from the statements the Crown representatives (Mr G. G. G. Watson, of Wellington, and Mr R. A. Young, of Christchurch) compiled- the Crown’s submissions to the commission, and selected witnesses. The duty of the Crown representatives is to see that all relevant facts are brought before the commission as completely as possible—they neither prosecute nor submit. Many persons who made statements will not be called because other witnesses have established facts which they, would have presented, and their evidence would be repetition and would not materially assist the commission in reaching its findings.

Work of Lawyers The files before the Crown’s evidence was assembled were so voluminous that Mr Young took a dinner waggon to his office to carry the documents between his room and the strongroom. With Mr Watson, he was in close touch with the police and other investigators in the preliminary inquiries. In four full days before the commission opened its proceedings, Mr Watson and Mr Young prepared Mr Watson’s opening address, recognised by all who heard it as a masterly review of the evidence to come before the commission. The address lasted one day and a half. “No charge, criticism or inference against any person is intended in the statement of the Crown’s views, which are merely present and tentative,” said Mr Watson then.

Sharing the leading of Crown witnesses with Mr Young, Mr Watson has had several strenuous examinations of witnesses, whose evidence, he has found when they have gone into the box, was not covered •by the briefs. To frame question extempore, listen accurately for the answer and then lead 'on to a sequence of consequen-, tial questions tor several hours on end is examination recognised by lawyers as arduous* and able; and the work of the leading counsel has elicited many facts from “unbriefed” witnesses, and commendation from members of the Bar.

A notable cross-examination was that of ai highly qualified electrical engineer by Mr T., A.' Gresson (for Ballantyne’s). On the first -day, Mr Gresson’s brow was covered with perspiration after one hour and threequarters of exceedingly technical questions, framed obviously after close study of an involved subject for a layman and after discussions with other experts in the same field of technology and science. He continued his cross-examination for tjiree hours and a half on Friday. Thirteen counsel and two agents have been appearing in the ease. Two other solicitors also, made appearances early in the hearing, when the incidents at Ballantyne’s on the afternoon of the fiTe were being narrated by witnesses. Two parties—the City Council and the Fire Board—have doubled their legal representation since the inquiry began and the separate interests of the fire underwriters and accident underwriters, originally watched by one counsel, are now being watched by three lawyers.