COUNSEL ASKS FIRE COMMISSION TO ATTRIBUTE BLAME

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 22670, 22 June 1948, Page 6

COUNSEL ASKS FIRE COMMISSION TO ATTRIBUTE BLAME

(P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, June 21. For almost an hour before the royal commission investigating Ballantyne s fire resumed its hearing of the final submissions today the chairman, Sir Harold Johnston, K.C., discussed with counsel whether the commission was concerned with civil liability. He discussed at length with Mr. B. A. Barren representing the clothing trades unions, whether his submissions were leading the commission to matters outside its jurisdiction. Mr. G G. G Watson, for the Crown submitted that the commission should make no attempt to decide the common law liability.

He was supported by Mr. C. S Thomas, for the accident underwriters, and by Mr. R. Tywneham, for the fire underwriters, that the question would have to be fought out in another forum Order of Reference

Mr Watson said Mr Barrier contended •hat most of his submissions dealt with the second clause of the order of reference of the commission which provided ‘hat the commission should ascertain whether everything possible was done for the evacuation and safety of people.

He thought that impinged On questions of common law involved. Some of the claims he had to make would be based on the lost expectation of life. He appreciated that the only thing that could be done for the relatives was to obtain financial payment. He had hoped that the facts would be found as fullv .as the order of reference allowed said Mr. Bnrrcr. This miffiit have helped to avoid further litigation. The chairman: But there is no need for further litigation

“Some of the issues before the commission are purely questions of fact,” said Mr. Watson, “and the commission will have to answer those questions ir. resnective of what liability may be established bv those answers. If those questions are answered in a certain way, although they have no binding effect in law. the'publicity that will have been given to the answers may have some effect on any subsequent proceedings before a jury, Not Concerned With Civil Liabilify “Counsel, therefore, are entitled to analyse the evidence so as to bring before the commission their own points of view in disasters of this magnitude. The. Crown is not concerned with civil liability, but whether individuals have discharged their duty, and whether disciplinary action may ce called for in certain cases though not particularly in this one. Perhaps it is concerned whether criminal proceedings for negligence should be put in train so far as the mention of all oossible means to ensure evacuation and safety in the order of reference is concerned. “I shall ask the commission to construe that as meaning reasonably possible in the circumstances,” said Mr. Watson.

The real objective of the commission was to see that future disasters did not occur, said the chairman. Mr. Barrer, said Sir Harold, wanted the commission to attribute blame. Personally, he did not like to attribute blame.