STRANDING OF STEAMER

Otago Daily Times, Volume 25205, Issue 25205, 20 April 1943, Page 4

STRANDING OF STEAMER

REHEARING OF INQUIRY PROTEST BY MASTER’S COUNSEL (PA.) WELLINGTON, Apl. 19. A protest against placing in jeopardy for the second time within three months the reputation and livelihood of the former master of the steamer Kaiwarra, Captain W. H. D. Gardiner, was made by his counsel, Mr G. G. Watson, during the rehearing in Wellington to-day by the Supreme Court of the investigation into the stranding of the steamer on December 4, 1942, near Motunau Island, North Canterbury. He asked for costs against the Minister of Marine, and Mr C. G. White, counsel for the Union Company, made a similar application. Mr Watson said that if acquitted in the criminal courts of any offence the master would have been cleared for all time and could not have been put on trial again, but in this particular matter, with the curious power possessed by the Minister, he could be. The findings of the previous investigation were those of a learned magistrate, assisted by competent assessors, but the Minister apparently did not agree with them. It was curious, if the rehearing was ordered because the second officer thought an injustice had been done to him, that the power of the court of rehearing had not been limited to that particular question. That would have been the fair and proper course. Instead, the master’s reputation and livelihood were placed in jeopardy again. Mr W. Perry, representing the second officer, said the Minister had ordered the rehearing at the request of the second officer, who felt aggrieved at the decision of the previous inquiry, \ the findings of which, he submitted, \ were contradictory in respect of this officer. The. evidence showed that there had been no material change in the state of #ie sea or wind which would have made it incumbent on him to report to'the master. Dr N. A. Foden, for the Marine Department, said the department wanted the question of the navigation of the ship determined by a more authoritative court. Representations had been made to the Minister that there had been a miscarriage of justice concerning the second officer, but a more important principle was involved, namely, safe and sound navigation. He submitted that the Minister had exercised his powers in the right direction. Mr Justice Northcroft said there had been one inquiry, and it had been elected to have another, something which it was suggested was abnormal and costly tp the citizens. The court had not, however, yet formed an opinion on this matter. The court's findings will be given shortly.