that the airline should pay to the Department of Justice the sum of
$150,000 by way of costs.

Earlier in this judgment we have said that if the challenged findings
were made without jurisdiction or contrary to natural justice then it
would be possible for the Court to take steps by way of declaration to
offer at least some form of redress. And we went on to explain why we
think the Royal Commission was bound by the broad requirements of
natural justice. As an example of what would be required to meet
obligations of fairness we then referred to the need for a reasonable
opportunity of meeting unformulated suspicions of deception and
concealment that had been in the Commissioner's mind. However, before we
turn to the natural justice part of the case it is convenient to
consider the claim of excess jurisdiction, and that by confining our
attention to the terms of reference.

The submission of counsel for the sixth respondent is that the
statements contained in each of the two paragraphs 348 and 377 are
relevant to and justified by the following items of the terms of
reference:

(g) Whether the crash of the aircraft or the death of the
passengers and crew was caused or contributed to by any person
(whether or not that person was on board the aircraft) by an act
or omission in respect of any function in relation to the
operation, maintenance, servicing, flying, navigation, manoeuvring,
or air traffic control of the aircraft, being a function which that
person had a duty to perform or which good aviation practice
required that person to perform?