RANGATIRA INQUIRY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 79, Issue 84, 8 April 1936, Page 5

RANGATIRA INQUIRY

FINDING OF THE COURT

"AN ERROR OF JUDGMENT” TRIBUTES TO SEAMANSHIP No Certificate Prejudicially Affected BOTH RETURNED TO HOLDERS I Per Press AssunaLon. J WELLING 10A, April 7. The juclgmeut oi the court up by tne uirection of tne iviULst.r ui Marine, the Hon. I'. x’raser, to ichear the inquiry into tlia stranding, on x'eoruary 2, of tne interistand express Steamer, Rangaara, was delivered this afternoon. Dealing nrst. with the legal po.nt j raised during the pxOceea*ug# a? »o whether the uoui v naa jurisdicciou to rehear the inquiry, to which 11 I pages of judgment were devoted. ’ His Honour, tne Chiei Justice (oir I Michael Myers), held that Sec Ton 243 of the Shipping and beamen Act, 1908, must be regarded valid and His Honour neld that the Minister had jurisdiction tc oraer, and the Court to ho.d, a rehearing. On the facts of case the Court, i comprising His Honour and two asI sessors (Captains Worral and | Baron), came to the conclusion that in all the circumstances, tn» I master, proceeding as he did at I two minutes past six, was, in theii opinion, an error of judgment. In : view, however, of Captain Cam eron's unblemished record over a career of 35 yeais, and of the superb seamanship shown by him after the disaster, but lor whicn many lives might nave been lost, and of the undoubtedly abnormal tide which caused the vessel to be set to the west so far out of her course, the Court considered Jus certificate should not be affected. Dealing with the conduct of toe ship's wireless operator, Hudson, the judgment stated that the Court, i was not prepared to accept toe view that compliance with the ieI filiations was a matter left to the I discretion of the wireless officer. I It was his duty to carry out the ; instructions of the master of the | ship but, in doing so, he should | . comply with the regulations as to | distress procedure. It was only fair I to the wireless officer to say that, in the present case, no ill result | Followed bis failure to send ont the alarm signal preceding the dia- | tress call and message. The Couit I apparently, nad no jurisdiction I over certificates of wireless officers. but. in any event, it did not recommend. in all the circumstances of the case, that the officer’s certificate should be prejudicially alfected. The Court stated that there was no • doubt the vessel stranded on one of Hie | rocks in the neighbourhood ot loins Rock. The real question for consideration was whether at 6.2 a.tn., when he saw land which he concluded was ’tau rakirae. the master was justified in proceeding as he did in everything which i an experienced mariner could do and adopting ordinary caution, but it a casualty, nevertheless, took place he would be entitled to be exoneratedfrom all blame. The Court, however, was unable, to say that, was the position. The conclusion by the master and ine| chief officer that the headland they saw . was Taurakirae was quite intelligible.! That "as the land they expected to see. I Nevertheless, rhe vessel was three miles • iff her assumed course and. further than j that, off the actual course set, and the | Court was of opinion that the master was not justified, on his view' merely |of what must have been only a portion | lof the headland in the poor visibility h hat. obtained at the time, and, having (regard to the possible vagaries of the tides in Cook .Strait, of which every I mariner knew, in coming to an absolute |conclusion that the land he saw was {Taurakirae Head, and, in acting upon i that conclusion by proceeding at a I speed of 16 knots an hour. Even at an .ear ier stage, nainelv 5.35 a.m., when I the master came on deck, the Court was of opinion that be should, in the condiItions that existed, have taken way off his ship ami obtained a bearing to cheek his estimation of the position. I Seeing that was not done,t he conditions (at 6.2 a.m., when the headland was sighted, called for special caution, and | • the ship should have been stopped until the general conditions improved to such ’ an extent as to enable the master to locate his position with absolute certainty, or he had. at least, obtained a d.f. bearing in order to check his assumed position. Referring to the three d.f. bearings ■ which were subsequently obtained i from Tinakori Hill station after the 1 ■ vessel got off the rocks, the Court said | it was not until they were received that the master knew that the ship I was in the vincity of Sinclair Head and not, as he thought, of Taurakirae I t Head. There was no doubt of the H honesty of the master and the chief II officer when thev said that the, land 1 they saw thev concluded to be Taura- * i kirae Head. The Court, however, was forced to the conclusion that the visibility- was so bad as to require more caution than was displayed. The master expected to see Taurakirae and ’ concluded that, was the headkind he i i di<i see. Though his conclusion was natural enough, it s’uo/i, in the circumstances that exist f , have been i verified before the vessel was allowed lto proceed further on a 16 knot voyage. 1 The. Court made an order for the re--1 turn of the captain’s certificate ami also rhe certificate of the wireless operator. The Chief Justice said he had not made any order as to costs, because the proceedings we f e not of Captain Cameron’s seeking, but it. appeared to him that Mr. Cooke might want to challenge the judgment of the Court regarding its jurisdiction. He did not know whether, or how, he could, but it might help Mr. Cooke if an order was made for the payment of costs. Mr. Cooke did not ask for any order, ami Mr. Cornish gave an assurance that Air. Cooke would not be prejudiced in anv event by the fact thtit no order was made against Captain Cameron. The Minister had been concerned to see only that the principles of sound navigation were vindicated. That had b.-en done and that wm enough.