Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Mount Erebus Aircraft Disaster - C.A. 95/81 by Duncan Ivor L. M. Richardson R. B. Cooke Sir Owen Woodhouse;Wallace McMullin;Sir Edward Somers
page 110 of 115 (95%)
page 110 of 115 (95%)
|
In the Courts it is constantly necessary to indicate a preference for
the evidence of one witness or to make a decision to put evidence completely to one side; sometimes it even seems necessary to describe evidence in terms of perjury. But in the Courts Judges always attempt to be most circumspect in handling issues of this kind, particularly if misconduct seems apparent which is not immediately associated with the central issues in the case. There can be no less reason for circumspection in the case of a Royal Commission at least where the terms of reference do not directly give rise to inquiries into criminal dealing. In _Re The Royal Commission on Licensing_ (1945) N.Z.L.R. 665 Sir Michael Myers C.J. dealt with the point in the following way (at p. 680): "A Commission of Inquiry under the statute and a Royal Commission under the Letters Patent are alike in this respect--each of them is an inquiry, not an inquisition. By that I mean that the Commission is not a roving Commission of a general character authorizing investigation into any matter that the members of the Commission may think fit to inquire into and that the ambit of the inquiry is limited by the terms of the instrument of appointment of the Commission." It must always be sensible for any Commission of Inquiry or other tribunal to keep those words in mind. We are satisfied that the findings contained in each of paragraphs 348 and 377 are collateral assessments of conduct made outside of and were not needed to answer any part of the terms of reference. The Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to deal with the affected officers in such a fashion and the findings themselves are a regrettable |
|