Inspector defended

Press, 26 October 1984, Page 1

Inspector defended

PA Wellington There was no impropriety in the letter addressed by the former Chief Inspector of Air Accidents to the Privy Council during litigation over the Mount Erebus inquiry, said the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, Mr McLay, yesterday.

Mr McLay, the former Attorney-General, released two letters and made a statement to answer points in an address to the National Press Club yesterday by the Erebus Royal Commissioner, Mr Peter Mahon.

Mr McLay said he had always avoided public disagreement with Mr Mahon wherever possible, and had considerable respect for him as a judge, but believed he had made two serious allegations which should be answered. “I do not intend to comment on his allegations against the Privy Council,” said Mr McLay. “The simple fact that they are made against five of Britain’s most distinguished Law Lords should be a sufficient answer.”

He said the first allegation requiring reply was that the Government, having indicated it would provide the Royal Commissioner with the necessary financial support to appeal against the decision of the

Court of Appeal (reviewing certain aspects of-the commission report), then opposed the appeal itself before the Privy Council.

Mr McLay said he was releasing a copy of the instruction he sent to the counsel for the AttorneyGeneral, Mr Robert Smellie, Q.C., of Auckland. This made it clear that, as Attor-ney-General, he did not intend to take a stance on any matter affecting primarily the merits of the argument between Mr Mahon on the one hand, and Air New Zealand, Messrs Davis and Gemmell, on the other.

“Mr Smellie was also instructed that if in the course of preparing his case possible lines of argument occurred (particularly arguments that might not have been advanced by any one of the other parties), the proper 1 course of action would be to draw those arguments to the attention of all other parties, preferably in writing,” said Mr McLay.

In effect, Mr Smellie was instructed to adopt a neutral or “straight down the middle” stance before the Privy Council. “Reports that I have received satisfy me that these instructions were followed,” said Mr McLay.

He pointed out that in addition to Mr Smellie and another Auckland lawyer, Mr N. C. Anderson, the Government also instructed a senior English barrister, Mr David Widdicombe, Q.C., who regularly sat as a deputy High Court judge, and that Mr Smellie' had always acted in consultation with Mr Widdicombe.

Mr McLay said that Mr Mahon’s second assertion requiring an answer related to the alleged improper action of the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents, Mr Ron Chippindale, in writing a letter addressed to the Law Lords who were sitting on the Privy Council. Mr Mahon complained to the then Minister of Civil Aviation, Mr Gair, and Mr McLay investigated the complaint. He released yesterday a copy of the letter he wrote to Mr Mahon on October 18.

“It was quite clear that there was no impropriety,” Mr McLay said yesterday. “Mr Chippindale had become concerned about factual claims being made in

the course of arguments E resented on Mr. Mahon’s ehalf to the Privy Council. “He apparently sought advice as to how the Law Lords might properly be informed on these issues. He was advised to draw his material to the attention of Mr Smellie, appearing for the Attorney-General.” Mr Chippindale wrote to Mr Smellie, asking him to introduce the material if he saw fit, and sent the letter to the only address he had, care of the Privy Council at No. 9 Downing Street, London. It appeared the letter was opened in error at the registry of the council, but immediately passed on to Mr Smellie, and there was no reason to believe it had been seen by the Court. Mr Smellie supplied copies of the letter to counsel for Air New Zealand, Mr Robert Alexander, Q.C., and for Mr Mahon, Sir Patrick Neill, Q.C.

“The material was not supplied to their lordships, nor was any attempt made to put it before them. It was given instead to the lawyers acting for the parties, precisely in accordance with my instructions,” said Mr McLay.

“Clearly there was no impropriety.” Mr McLay said that all this information was known to Mr Mahon. On October 20 last year he had told Mr McLay that he accepted Mr Smellie’s explanation of the facts, although he maintained his criticism that the material should' not have been made available to counsel acting for Air New Zealand.

“Mr Mahon had been supplied with the full facts of the Chippindale letter and had indicated that he accepted them,” he said. “I therefore regret that at the time of launching his book he has seen fit to repeat these allegations,” Mr McLay said. A Press Association report from Auckland said that the former Air New Zealand chief executive, Mr Morrie Davis, said he had received a copy of the book late yesterday and had skimmed through it. He would not comment, however, until he had read it in detail.