Lawyer complains of railways ‘deceit’

Press, 25 May 1977, Page 27

Lawyer complains of railways ‘deceit’

PA Auckland. Allegations that the Railways Department and the police had “connived” against a witness have been denied before the board of inquiry into the Newmarket train smash. Counsel for the National Union of Railwaymen (Mr J. Haigh). told the board that an “irregularity” had occurred regarding one of his client union's witnesses. Mr Haigh said that the witness had been denied his legitimate right to legal representation during an incident last week.

On Thursday, the police and the deparment’s district traffic manager ap- z proached Mr Thomas Stratton, a signalman who had already given long evidence to both the police and the board of inquiry.

The traffic manager (Mr Hudson) told Mr Stratton that the police wanted to interview him again, at the central police station, said Mr Haigh “At Auckland railway station, Mr Stratton asked for his legal counsel. Mr Hudson told him he was not entitled to have counsel during the interview. Mr Stratton had then been subjected to a one and a half hour interview, at the police station, said counsel.

Mr Haigh said that the police had breached the “spirit of the inquiry” by approaching hL client outside the courtroom. He said that the department had acted in a “deceitful and underhanded way,” in connivance with the police in dealing with the witness.

“I want to seek an assurance from the department that if they want to

question my witnesses, they have me present,” he said. The board chairman (Mr E. B. E. Taylor) said he did not wish to comment, as the incident did not directly affect the inquiry. Counsel for the Railways Department, Mr S. B. W. Grieve, said later that actions attributed to Mr Hudson had been incorrectly set out. Information of a serious nature had been given to the police, with the request that it be investigated. •Mr Grieve said he had been advised by Mr Hudson that the employee was entitled to the protection of the department rules and regulations. Mr Grieve told Mr Hudson that in the context of a criminal investigation the Railway rules did not apply.

“It was in no way intended to convey that he had no right to counsel,” said Mr Grieve.

Mr Hudson had not been seeking to deny Mr Stratton his rights, but had been trying to give them to him. Mr Grieve said there were no criminal charges arising from the matters, and that there had been no connivance between the Railways and the police.

The district traffic manager, Mr Hudson, then took the stand. His position required him to examine staff on rules, regulations and emergency procedures every year.

He said that serious allegations about a lack of co-ordination and cooperation within the department during a threeday power black-out last September had deeply concerned him. He had

ordered senior staff to investigate the accusations, and their replies were dealt with by an assistant. He had been most concerned that none of the allegations were reported at the time of the black-out to allow suitable action to be taken. Mr Hudson said he had over-ail responsibility in the region to ensure the traffic code was carried out. Cross-examined. he agreed there had been no traffic staff examinations in Auckland, “for some time.” While Mr Hudson believed the traffic code was adequate, he said that another instructor should be hired to examine staff. The deputy chief traffic manager (Mr William Thomas Raine) said a working party set up during last year bad investigated staff training within the department, and had made a report in November , “Included was a recommendation that training officers within the department should urgently investigate and prepare training plans for all areas of traffic branch, general division operations,” he said.

There was to be research into the various areas at an early date..

Re-examination procedures in rules and regulations would be one of the fields looked at, while some thought had also been given to appointing additional signal and staff instructors.

Mr Raine was the final witness to give evidence before the board. Counsel representing the various unions and the board will sum-up the evidence on Thursday.