BIG BAY ACCIDENT

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23335, 29 October 1937, Page 12

BIG BAY ACCIDENT

THE BOARD OF INQUIRY UNFAIR TREATMENT OF PILOT ALLEGED MINISTER REPLIES TO CRITICISM (From Our Parliamentary Reporter> WELLINGTON, Oct 28. The allegation that Bradshaw, the pilot of the aeroplane which crashed at Big Bay on December 30 with fatal results, had been the subject of unfair treatment was made by Mr J. Hargest (Opposition, Awarua) when speaking on the second reading of the Air Department Bill in the House of Representatives to-day. Mr Hargest said he thought Bradshaw had been the subject of harsh treatment. The pilot had shown the most heroic conduct for, although badly injured himself, he had gone back time after time into the water and brought out all the injured. Mr Hargest said that on June 3 the newspapers published a statement that the Minister of Defence had set up a court of inquiry to be held in camera at Invercargill on June 23. The pilot received no notification until three days before the inquiry was held. On June 20, Mr Hargest said, he had wired the Minister suggesting that the pilot should be notified and he had received a note that the Crown prosecutor would notify the man immediately. The Minister had ordered an inquiry in camera. In this case, Mr Hargest continued, the pilot and his counsel had protested and the Minister had replied that witnesses would give evidence more freely if the inquiry were held in camera. The Minister's reply was weak. " Definite charges have been made by the member for Awarua with respect to the Big Bay inquiry, and I intend to clear myself and the Government," said the Minister, when replying later in the debate to the statements made by Mr Hargest. The Minister said that the pilot (Bradshaw) was written to on February 25 and informed that his B licence was suspended until the inquiry which was to be held. On May 11, when Bradshaw wrote asking when the inquiry was to be held, he was informed that a date had not been fixed.

"This was the first inquiry of its kind as far as the new Air Department was concerned," the Minister added, "and I discussed with the officers of my department the question whether it should be held in private or in, public. Naturally, I desired to have it in public unless there were special reasons for not doing so, but it was pointed out to me that if the inquiry were held in camera, as is the case in England, it would be more likely to produce information that would be helpful in protecting life in the future. It was also suggested that the inquiry would be better held in private if, as was supposed, Bradshaw was responsible and was likely to be faced with other charges. I agreed for those reasons that it should be held in private, and a competent board of inquiry was appointed." The Minister stated that on June 14 a press statement was issued to the effect that the inquiry would be held on June 23, and when on June 17 Mr Hargest wired saying that Bradshaw had not been notified the Crown Solicitor in Invercargill was instructed to advise him. Within a week after the inquiry the Board of Inquiry had given its opinion that Bradshaw was responsible for the accident, and on August 5 Bradshaw received a letter from the Controller of Civil Aviation, in which he was told that his B licence would be reissued on application. " I admit that a mistake took place there," Mr Jones added. " Seemingly some junior in the department, thinking that a recommendation by the Board of Inquiry that the B licence should be returned was binding on the Government, dealt with the letter as a routine matter. The letter was signed by a junior, but later Bradshaw was informed that his licence was not to be reissued—:at that time, at any rate; How could I possibly issue a licence to Bradshaw while there were charges pending against him?" asked the Minister.

"The delay in issuing the licence was not due to the Government," the Minister claimed. " I had a duty to the public and a responsibility to protect public interest and also the interest of Bradshaw himself Four charges were laid against the pilot. Would it have been right for a responsible Minister to have allowed him to fly again when, as the result of his last flight, one man had been killed and a woman seriously injured? There was even then the possibility of a more serious charge against the man." Mr Jones said that the charges had given Bradshaw a chance to make his case in public before a magistrate. If there had been an accident in the time before the charges had been heard, supposing a licence had been granted temporarily, who would have been held responsible? Had that action been taken the Minister would have received the censure of the people. In any case the raising of the matter in the House by Mr Hargest could only do Bradshaw a disservice.