Jump to content

Enchanter Northland


Recommended Posts

This is a deeply concerning story and relates directly the the MNZ prosecution of Lance Goodhew.

It is way too long to do justice by copying the relevant paragraphs (just about the whole thing is relevant). I do recommend you read it. I feel it justifies my position on MNZ 'persecuting' Lance Goodhew in this situation, specifically in that the charges are not warranted based on the evidence, and that the charges were predetermined and political in nature, in that people died so the regulator must hang someone. Anyone.

In this example, Worksafe assigned their leading helicopter industry expert to investigate the 4 helo companies involved with White Island. He found that the helo companies, specifically Volcanic Air Safaris Ltd had done nothing wrong. To the contrary, he considered their systems and practices to be exemplary, and recommended they be used as an exemplar in the industry.

He produced a 56 page report.

Management substantially altered his report, chopping it down to 20 something pages - then sent it back to him and instructed him to sign it.

He refused.

Management then put his electronic signature on it and issued it under his name anyway.

The investigator was so upset by this he eventually resigned. But that is not the half of it.

He ended up issuing an affidavit on behalf of the helicopter companies. The Worksafe investigator went to court supporting the companies he was investigating - because Worksafe's decision to prosecute was morally bankrupt.

In the end, the helo companies were forced to plead guilty, because they simply could not afford to defend the charges against the unlimited budget of Worksafe. Those companies then folded.

Noting that the charges were reduced from $1.5m to $500,000 based on Worksafe's own investigators affidavit. 

 

These are the same helo companies that were honoured with bravery awards for actually rescuing people at White Island, while officials forced our actual rescue services to stand down.

 

WorkSafe’s Whakaari investigator said chopper companies shouldn’t be charged | Stuff

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, K4309 said:

This is a deeply concerning story and relates directly the the MNZ prosecution of Lance Goodhew.

It is way too long to do justice by copying the relevant paragraphs (just about the whole thing is relevant). I do recommend you read it. I feel it justifies my position on MNZ 'persecuting' Lance Goodhew in this situation, specifically in that the charges are not warranted based on the evidence, and that the charges were predetermined and political in nature, in that people died so the regulator must hang someone. Anyone.

In this example, Worksafe assigned their leading helicopter industry expert to investigate the 4 helo companies involved with White Island. He found that the helo companies, specifically Volcanic Air Safaris Ltd had done nothing wrong. To the contrary, he considered their systems and practices to be exemplary, and recommended they be used as an exemplar in the industry.

He produced a 56 page report.

Management substantially altered his report, chopping it down to 20 something pages - then sent it back to him and instructed him to sign it.

He refused.

Management then put his electronic signature on it and issued it under his name anyway.

The investigator was so upset by this he eventually resigned. But that is not the half of it.

He ended up issuing an affidavit on behalf of the helicopter companies. The Worksafe investigator went to court supporting the companies he was investigating - because Worksafe's decision to prosecute was morally bankrupt.

In the end, the helo companies were forced to plead guilty, because they simply could not afford to defend the charges against the unlimited budget of Worksafe. Those companies then folded.

Noting that the charges were reduced from $1.5m to $500,000 based on Worksafe's own investigators affidavit. 

 

These are the same helo companies that were honoured with bravery awards for actually rescuing people at White Island, while officials forced our actual rescue services to stand down.

 

WorkSafe’s Whakaari investigator said chopper companies shouldn’t be charged | Stuff

If that is fact, they should be prosecuted - that is fraud! :shock:

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Island Time said:

If that is fact, they should be prosecuted - that is fraud! :shock:

Yes, absolutely.

I can't think of a professional situation where you can rewrite someone else's document, put their signature on it and issue it. More so and especially against that persons express and written wishes.

In just about every scenario I can think of this would be labelled any one of:

Fraud,

Obtaining by deception,

Altering a document for pecuniary benefit, etc.

The unwarranted charges against the helo companies are one thing, and the bit relevant to this thread, but the way Worksafe conducted themselves and the lengths they went to to change the facts to suit their narrative is really alarming.

There are other examples of Worksafe prosecution that fit this modus operandi as well. Not relevant to this thread so I wont go off into detail, but the best example is the Arthur's Pass tourist bus crash. They went after the mechanic that serviced the bus in a most alarming way, to the extent Worksafe pressured ALL of his clients to stop using him. They only withdrew the charges when their inspector died(after about 4 years I think), but when the mechanic raised the prospect of damages Worksafe threatened him with further charges if he dared bring a case against them. That in itself is illegal, using threats of more charges to get out of paying damages. 

Noting this all had zero to do with the actual crash. It was an imported Chinese bus and sounded like no-one assessed the breaks as being suitable for NZ conditions... Driver said the brakes failed but no one verified the driver got it into the right gear before dropping down the Otira incline.

Anyway, these little facts coming out is why I am so suspicious and skeptical of MNZ's motives in bringing charges on the Enchanter tragedy, and the accuracy of their evidence. Noting their key witness has already been proven to have been lying at trial. And of the 6 charges MNZ brought, only one actually made it to trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Island Time said:

If that is fact, they should be prosecuted - that is fraud! :shock:

From the article the altered report still bearing the original signature was withdrawn and replaced with the same altered report but with a different persons signature (Paul West's).

So it did not make it into the courts evidence at the hearing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

From the article the altered report still bearing the original signature was withdrawn and replaced with the same altered report but with a different persons signature (Paul West's).

So it did not make it into the courts evidence at the hearing. 

This is getting beyond my knowledge,

But if the report was issued to the lawyers by Worksafe, does that immediately make it 'disclosable' as evidence?

In the same way that the external lawyer (I understood to be the Crown Prosecutor) stated Paul Patterson should not send his original report, my understanding being that if he did so it would then be 'disclosable' to all, including the defense.

The principals of full disclosure being that the prosecution must disclose all evidence, if it helps their case or not.

The extension being a failure to make full disclosure can show prejudice and or bias, and has gotten plenty of prosecutions thrown out of court in the past (referring to criminal court here, but equally applies to our justice system and prosecutions under the H&S Act.

The basic principal of natural justice being that the prosecution cannot pick and choose evidence, all evidence must be made available. This being separate to how the prosecute the case at trial of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, K4309 said:

This is getting beyond my knowledge,

But if the report was issued to the lawyers by Worksafe, does that immediately make it 'disclosable' as evidence?

In the same way that the external lawyer (I understood to be the Crown Prosecutor) stated Paul Patterson should not send his original report, my understanding being that if he did so it would then be 'disclosable' to all, including the defense.

The principals of full disclosure being that the prosecution must disclose all evidence, if it helps their case or not.

The extension being a failure to make full disclosure can show prejudice and or bias, and has gotten plenty of prosecutions thrown out of court in the past (referring to criminal court here, but equally applies to our justice system and prosecutions under the H&S Act.

The basic principal of natural justice being that the prosecution cannot pick and choose evidence, all evidence must be made available. This being separate to how the prosecute the case at trial of course.

My point was in response to IT that it wasn't fraud in the true legal sense of the meaning because it was withdrawn before it got to court.

The original report is just an internal document it isn't evidence. It's fundamentally an opinion piece until a higher up puts a stamp of approval on it allowing it to be released.

I am not trying to suggest that I condone the actions of Worksafe. I find this whole matter very unsettling. 

That said it is a very one onsided article. And of note Peterson refused to talk to Stuff. Perhaps Worksafe had some other experts that came to a different opinion? Without both sides of the story, of which we have neither sides, it's easy to have an emotive response to an article that's obviously been written with that intent 🤣

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not guilty.

Wow.

How often does that happen?!?

Can't wait for Maritime NZ to comment...

From Aardvarks link:

Judge Rzepecky said the terrible tragedy was caused by a significant rogue wave in otherwise benign conditions, and could not be sure Goodhew could have foreseen it given the information he had at the time.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous result , from a lame prosecution . It wasnt a rogue wave and yes they often peak up along that shore in those conditions  hence If Goodhew knew where he was, it was easy to predict.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, waikiore said:

Ridiculous result , from a lame prosecution . It wasnt a rogue wave and yes they often peak up along that shore in those conditions  hence If Goodhew knew where he was, it was easy to predict.

Maybe it was the lying key Crown witness that did it?

"Too rough to go fishing, Enchanter should never have left the anchorage"

Accept AIS showed said key Crown witness spent 7 hours fishing that morning...

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the four-week trial progressed, weather experts gave evidence about the state of the sea around North Cape. They claimed rogue waves could occur anywhere, anytime and at any sea level.

 

Judge Rzepecky decided he could not be certain Goodhew could have predicted a rogue wave would appear, evidence he believed was clear through the trial.

“Based on observations and scientific evidence, I cannot be sure the presence of a wave was reasonably foreseeable and after considering all the evidence I cannot be sure that a reasonably careful mariner should have decided to stay.

“I’m not satisfied the prosecution has proven its case in respect to the single charge. I therefore find him not guilty and the charge is dismissed,” Judge Rzepecky said.
 
Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, K4309 said:

How often does that happen?!?

More often than you might think.

That's the justice system at work.  The evidence falls where it falls, the judge or jury assess on what they hear and see in the courtroom.

This was a trial requiring " beyond reasonable doubt". That's a very high bar for a prosecution to hurdle, and rightly so.  The judge had doubts, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, aardvarkash10 said:

More often than you might think.

That's the justice system at work.  The evidence falls where it falls, the judge or jury assess on what they hear and see in the courtroom.

This was a trial requiring " beyond reasonable doubt". That's a very high bar for a prosecution to hurdle, and rightly so.  The judge had doubts, so the outcome was a foregone conclusion.

 

It was really a rhetorical question, given the predominant view on this forum from the majority of posters is that he is guilty as sin for gross negligence and recklessness, despite what the evidence says.

Strewth, we even have learned members stating the Judge, who sat through all of the evidence and gave it all thorough consideration, has made a ridiculous decision.

@waikiore, please tell us, how do you predict a rogue wave?

And, do you follow MNZ's rule of not going closer than 3nm to headlands? Remember that? MNZ stated Goodhew was guilty of gross negligence for rounding a headland within less than 3nm?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see MNZ rewriting the rule book.No mention of compensation to families for lose of lives.

Yes I believed Lance to be in the wrong and still do,looking at where he was and conditions,shallows wasnt the place to be. 

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, harrytom said:

Yes I believed Lance to be in the wrong and still do,looking at where he was and conditions,shallows wasnt the place to be. 

Are you basing that on the facts, or what Maritime NZ told you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, K4309 said:

Are you basing that on the facts, or what Maritime NZ told you?

The evidence is quite clear about where he was and further as far as I have heard, this evidence was never challenged by the defense.  The defense effectively went OK, if that's what the experts say, then that's where he was.  Do you have other facts to dispute this?

MNZ's entire case stood on the fact that he was that he was in too shallow water and a presumption that he did not take into consideration Rogue waves for that depth.

The judge stated that a rogue wave is not something that Goodhew should have foreseen with the information available to him and further that MNZ failed beyond reasonable doubt to show that he should of known of the risk.

Quote

I have found the Enchanter was capsized and destroyed by a significant rogue wave which came without warning. At the time conditions were benign with about 10-12 knots of wind and a sea of around 1-2 metres. Based on the observations of the survivors and the expert scientific evidence, I cannot be sure that the occurrence of such a wave was reasonably foreseeable based on the information available to Mr Goodhew when he decided to leave the Three Kings Islands.

After considering all the evidence … I cannot be sure that a reasonably careful mariner, with Mr Goodhew's experience, would have decided not to leave the Three Kings Islands when he did. I cannot rule out the possibility that the cause of this tragic maritime casualty was just a terrible accident and not a cause anyone was actually responsible for. Therefore I am not sure the prosecution has proven its case against Mr Goodhew beyond reasonable doubt …. Accordingly I find Mr Goodhew not guilty and the charge is dismissed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys need to look at the definition of a rogue wave. There is absolutely zero to do with shallow water. And by definition, they are entirely unpredictable.

If the boat got nailed by surf then yes, your criticism would be warranted, but it wasn't. All agreed, including the prosecution, that it was a rogue wave. Not surf. Not a breaking wave.

After that fact was established, everything else is just noise.

 

Rogues, called 'extreme storm waves' by scientists, are those waves which are greater than twice the size of surrounding waves, are very unpredictable, and often come unexpectedly from directions other than prevailing wind and waves.

Most reports of extreme storm waves say they look like "walls of water." They are often steep-sided with unusually deep troughs.

Since these waves are uncommon, measurements and analysis of this phenomenon is extremely rare. Exactly how and when rogue waves form is still under investigation, but there are several known causes:

Constructive interference. Extreme waves often form because swells, while traveling across the ocean, do so at different speeds and directions. As these swells pass through one another, their crests, troughs, and lengths sometimes coincide and reinforce each other. This process can form unusually large, towering waves that quickly disappear. If the swells are travelling in the same direction, these mountainous waves may last for several minutes before subsiding.

Focusing of wave energy. When waves formed by a storm develop in a water current against the normal wave direction, an interaction can take place which results in a shortening of the wave frequency. This can cause the waves to dynamically join together, forming very big 'rogue' waves. The currents where these are sometimes seen are the Gulf Stream and Agulhas current. Extreme waves developed in this fashion tend to be longer lived.

What is a rogue wave? (noaa.gov)

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, K4309 said:

All agreed, including the prosecution, that it was a rogue wave. Not surf. Not a breaking wave.

The case notes strongly suggests otherwise...

Quote

It was obviously just a big, steep, short, sharp swell, that crested and broke and hit us.

The evidence from several survivors was that a 10m high wave came in, was clearly visible in the distance, it built even higher, crested and broke, rolling and smashing the boat to pieces.

I am pretty sure that Rogue waves, crest and break, just like any other wave, when the distance to the sea bed becomes less than the height of the wave. 

 

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, CarpeDiem said:

The case notes strongly suggests otherwise...

The evidence from several survivors was that a 10m high wave came in, was clearly visible in the distance, it built even higher, crested and broke, rolling and smashing the boat to pieces.

I am pretty sure that Rogue waves, crest and break, just like any other wave, when the distance to the sea bed becomes less than the height of the wave. 

 

 

You don't think a 10m high wave, that is clearly visible in the distance, is not a rogue wave? given the surrounding sea state was a 2m swell and 10 knt breeze. All eyewitness descriptions clearly met the definition of a rogue wave.

Anyway, the Judge concluded it was a rogue wave, not surf, not a regular wave standing up etc, and I guess that is all that really matters.

Wonder if Maritime NZ will now ban boats from getting closer than 3nm to land? (Referencing @harrytom's expectations MNZ will re-write the rule book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...