Vietnam or Thailand ? Vote for the TOP Country of the Week !
Updated: May 12, 2025
The gist of the contrary argument presented by Mr Baragwanath was that Mr Davis was fully cross-examined about his instructions; and that 'it was open to the Royal Commissioner to find that there were in existence documents which never found their way to that file and that the procedures were tailor made for destruction of compromising documents'. Alteration of Flight Plan
The arguments on the other side were presented chiefly by Mr Baragwanath and Mr Harrison, who had been counsel assisting the Commission and appeared in this Court for the Attorney-General, not to advance any view on behalf of the Government but to ensure that nothing that could possibly be said in answer to the contentions of Mr Brown and Mr Williams for the applicants was left unsaid before the Court.
There is a good deal of support in the authorities for excluding or strictly limiting judicial review of Commission findings and Mr Baragwanath carefully put the arguments forward.
On the other hand Mr Baragwanath urged in substance that the witnesses from the navigation section must have understood that their evidence was under suspicion; that they had ample opportunities to explain how and why any mistakes occurred; and that it was for the Commissioner to assess their explanations, taking into account any impressions they made on him individually as witnesses.
Attorney-General 28 N.Z.L.R. 405. 421, ... in fact, though not in name, a punishment'. What is more important, although Mr Baragwanath argued otherwise we have no doubt that reasonable readers of the report would understand that this order is linked with and consequential upon the adverse conclusions stated by the Commissioner in the section of the report headed by him 'The Stance adopted by the Airline before the Commission of Inquiry'. It is true that the reasons for the costs order open with a proposition about unnecessarily extending the hearing.
His following reasons include criticisms of the management of the airline for prolonging the hearing, and it was contended before us by Mr Baragwanath that they go no further. We are unable to accept that contention.
Counsel L.W. Brown, Q.C., for first and second appellants, with R.J. McGrane. D.A.R. Williams for third appellant, with L.L. Stevens. G.P. Barton for first respondent, with R.S. Chambers. A.F. MacAlister for fifth respondent, with P.J. Davison. W.D. Baragwanath for sixth respondent, with G.M. Harrison. Judgment 22 December 1981 JUDGMENT OF WOODHOUSE P. AND McMULLIN J. DELIVERED BY WOODHOUSE P.
To understand this complaint one needs a clear picture of what it was that the Commission found or alleged against the navigation section. When studying the report as a whole we have encountered difficulties in this regard, difficulties not altogether removed when we explored them during the argument with Mr Baragwanath.
Word Of The Day
Others Looking