DOLPHIN TRAGEDY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 288, 6 December 1939, Page 8

DOLPHIN TRAGEDY

NO PUBLIC INQUIRY LYTTELTON HARBOUR TRAGEDY NO CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE ESTABLISHED. [Per Press Association. J WELLINGTON, Dec. 5. A summary of the circumstances of the sinking of the trawler Dolphin in Lyttelton harbour on October 12 is contained in an official report issued by the Minister of Defence, Hon. F. Jones:— “Although it is admitted that an error was made in manipulation of the delicate mechanism of the gun sights through the tension of gun numbers the Government is satisfied that the causes of the accident have been traced to their origin and that no culpable negligence on any member of the gun's crew has been established,” says the report. “The Government has decided that i.s all lhe material facts relating to the accident have been placed before it no public inquiry is necessary.” The report states that at Lyttelton adequate steps were taken to bring the regulations to the notice of all concerned and every mariner using a port must be expected to make himself familiar with local requirements, especially in rime of war. Alteration .Made. Although it was definitely established that a deflection sufficient to ensure that the plugged shot should

pass harmlessly ahead was calculated and applied it seemed probable that in the excitement of the moment, a change was made in this deflection before the gun was fired. A searching inquiry failed to disclose by whom this chang? in deflection had been made. The report says that as an outcome of reports of the inquest certain misconceptions had gained credence and the Government desired to clear these matters up. Mention was made of the firing line. No such term was used in connection with the examination service, and it was clear the witness was referring to a line from Battery Point to Stoddart Point, which no outward bound small craft might cross without the obligation of proceeding on to the examination anchorage, closing on the examination vessel and obtaining fiom her the requisite instructions for re-entering the line prescribed. It had no connection with the procedure for passing in vessels. Incoming vessels were required not to pass the inner limit of the examination anchorage and the inner limit was more than three-quarters of a mile to seaward of. Battery Point. “Good Opportunity.” With regard to the remark reported to have been made by the battery commander after giving his instructions to the officer on duty at the battery that “it was a goo* opportunity," the unit had been in training for a lengthy period and was constantly on the alert 24 hours in each day. The alleged remark might have been completed by adding the words “to exercise the battery in carrying out its proper function.” The suggestion. that he thought it was a good opportunity to fire on and sink a vessel, of course, was absurd. With reference to the statement that no attempt was made by the personnel of the battery to rescue the survivor it was pointed out that there was no life-saving apparatus at Battery Point. Neither were there any boats in the vicinity which could have been utilised. In evidence lhe chief examination officer made reference to the system of dual control under which the examination service operated. That referred to the fact that such a service throughout the world was the joint responsibility of lhe naval and military authorities, the former for the floating part and the latter for the shore part. There was neither overlapping nor confusion, such as the term dual control might have been and often was taken to imply. The Government had given careful consideration to the desirability of ordering a public inquiry. It would not have hesitated to order such were it not fully satisfied that all the material facts had been elicited and placed before it. The Government was further satisfied that the cause of tho accident had been traced to its origin and that no culpable negligence on the aprt of any member of lhe guns’ crew had been estab-