Wahine Officers Charged

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31740, 25 July 1968, Page 1

Wahine Officers Charged

(New Zealand Press Association)

WELLINGTON, July 24.

The master, chief officer and chief engineer of the Wahine were charged this afternoon in connection with the loss of the ship in Wellington Harbour on April 10.

The charges were read by Mr R. C. Savage, representing the Crown Law Office, at the marine Court of Inquiry which heard evidence about the loss of the vessel.

Mr Savage emphasised the term “charge” was not used in the ordinary sense of the word.

He said the marine Court of Inquiry had no criminal jurisdiction and the word “charge” was used in the figurative sense.

He said the Court had power to deal with the certificates of the master and the officers and submitted that the Court should deal with their certificates.

Mr Savage said the charges did not mean there was any imputation against the personal conduct or courage of any of the officers. “In these respects they acquitted themselves well,” he said.

The charges against the master and officers did not mean that the charges represented the sole reason for the ship’s loss, said Mr Savage. The master. Hector G. Robertson, aged 57, is a master mariner who has been at sea for 41 years. ‘Wrongful Acts’ Captain Robertson was charged with the loss of the Wahine and the loss of the lives of 51 persons by reason of his wrongful acts or defaults in terms of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1952. in one or more of the following respects: (a) That during the period of approximately half an hour immediately prior to the grounding on Barrett’s Reef he failed to control the ship in accordance with proper and accepted standards of seamanship, in that when the ship was beam on to a high wind and rough sea he attempted in conditions of nil visibility to manoeuvre in a narrow channel and failed to use an anchor or anchors to gain proper control of the ship.

(b) That subsequent to the ship’s grounding he failed to ensure that the true extent of the damage to the ship was ascertained but acted upon assumptions. (c) That subsequent to the ship’s grounding he failed to ensure that effective measures to control flooding on the vehicle deck were taken, in

(1) Not using or attempting to use the scuppers provided on the deck for this purpose, (2) Not attempting the pumping of compartments from which water was entering the vehicle deck, and (3) Not taking or attempting other measures to get the water off the vehicle deck including removing the sill to the engineroom door, removing the access plates in the vehicle deck and draining into the fresh water and fuel tanks.

(d) That subsequent to the ship’s grounding he failed to communicate to the shore adequate reports of such information that he had and assumptions as he made as to the nature and extent of the damage, with the result that the authorities ashore were misled as to the gravity of the situation.

(e) That subsequent to the ship’s grounding he failed in the circumstances to assess the extent of the danger that existed to both ship and persons aboard and failed to ensure that adequate prepara-

tion was made for the safety of passengers in the event of abandonment in the following respects:

(1) Failing to ensure the distribution of lifejackets specifically for the use of children, (2) Failing to ensure that the passengers were adequately instructed as to what they should do, (3) Failing to ensure that special measures were taken for the care and assistance of the elderly and of women and small children, and (4) Failing to ensure that an adequate plan was made for the orderly allocation of lifeboats and rafts either in the event of all lifeboats being usable or only those on one side being usable.

Chief Officer

The chief officer, Rodney Stanes Luly, was charged similarly to the master’s headings (b), <c) and (e).

Chief Engineer

The chief engineer, Herbert Wareing, was charged that subsequent to the ship’s grounding, having undertaken toe task of dealing with the water on the vehicle deck he failed to use all the means at his disposal and within his professional competence for this purpose, in that: (1) He did not seek the master's authority to control the ingress of water by the pumping of compartments from which water was entering the vehicle deck. (2) He did not remove or attempt to remove the access plates in the vehicle deck. (3) He did not remove or attempt to remove the sill to the engine-room door. (4) He did not drain or

attempt to drain into the fresh water and fuel tanks.

Mr Savage said that in a limited sense charges were also made against the Wellington Harbour Board; and the Union Steam Ship Company, which owned the Wahine. Lee Shore “It is contended that the Harbour Board through the Harbourmaster (Captain R. E. Suckling at the time) failed to take adequate steps in respect of a danger which it should have realised.

“The danger was there of the ship, without motive power in the terrible weather, riding on its anchors with a lee shore.”

Mr Savage said had the anchors parted the ship must “inevitably” have been wrecked on the eastern shore. “The harbourmaster should have made provision for that contingency, and failed to.”

Company’s Position

Mr Savage said the same applied to the Union Steam Ship Company to a lesser degree, because primary responsibility rested on the Harbourmaster and the board.

The charges against the ship’s master and officers were laid under section 333 (1) (B) of the Shipping and Seamen Act, 1952. Mr Savage filed his charges at the end of the Marine Department’s evidence this afternoon.

After reading the charges, Mr Savage said the Act provided for the court to deal with the certificates of each of the officers. “At this stage in this type of inquiry it is usual to ask the officers concerned to hand their certificates to the Court. However, I cannot find anything in the Act to say this must be done." ‘Not Justified’ He said he did not consider the distrust and indignity involved for the officers in asking them to hand in their certificates justified an order to this effect being sought.

Under the Act the Court has the power to:

Cancel or suspend the master’s and officers’ certificates, but, if it does either, has the authority to issue a lesser certificate. Administer a censure or admonition. Order any parties to pay costs.

Court officials expect that the Court might deal with the question of the officers’ certificates fairly soon after the inquiry ends, and bring down its full report on the loss of the ship at a later date. 733 Aboard The Wahine, of 8948 tons, and less than two years old, struck Barrett’s reef at the western entrance to Wellington Harbour at 6.40 a.m. on the morning of April 10. The roll-on roll-off steamer, badly holed and flooded, came off the reef and drifted about a mile and a half up the harbour.

Her 610 passengers and 123 crew abandoned the ship just before she listed to starboard and sank in about 40 feet of water off Seatoun beach about 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon of the same day. Forty-four passengers, including three children, and seven crew members, lost their lives.