No Experts To Be Heard

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30979, 8 February 1966, Page 3

No Experts To Be Heard

(N.Z. Press Association) AUCKLAND, Feb. 7. No expert witnesses will be called at the court martial of an officer charged with negligent performance of duty in the cruiser Royalist, the Court ruled today.

This came after a submission from Mr H. J. Wallace, for accused, that the testimony of expert witnesses could bedevil issues and cause immense delay as question after question was put to them. Mr Wallace objected to the introduction of expert witnesses by the prosecution at the Court Martial of Commander Henry Rogerson Simmonds, at Shoal Bay, Auckland.

The court ruled, after a 45minute discussion with counsel, that expert witnesses would not be called. Simmonds has pleaded not guilty to a charge of negligent performance of duty in failing to prevent the spread of contamination in the propulsion machinery of the Royalist on November 1. Mr Wallace said the charge of negligence was primarily a question of fact. The facts in this matter on the evidence produced by the prosecution were violently in dispute. He submitted that the most the prosecution could do would be to call the expert witnesses and ask them hypothetical questions individually and not en bloc. Lieutenant-Commander D. L. Brooker, in his submission, for the prosecution, said it was competent for expert witnesses to be called to interpret and say what was, in the circumstances, the accepted practice. COURT CLEARED

Earlier, the Court was cleared for 20 minutes for a ruling on the question of admissibility of evidence. Lieutenant E. D. Deane, deputy-judge advocate, ruled that the evidence, which was not identified, was inadmissible.

Tomorrow is the sixth day of the hearing. The major witness was

Lieutenant-Commander F. J. Rolton, senior engineer in the Royalist since August, 1964. Lieutenant-Commander Rolton, who had been senior engineer in the Royalist since August 3, 1964, said he was responsible to accused for the organisation, discipline and the efficient running of the engine-room. After the engineer officer of the watch. Lieutenant O’Brien, had reported to them about contamination of the closed feed water system in the after engine-room on November 1, he and accused changed into overalls and went down there, arriving about 3 p.m. CONFIRMED He heard Commander Simmonds ask for and get confirmation from Chief E.R.A. Hunt that the main feed tank levelling valve and the extraction pump discharge cross-section unit valve were closed. Witness . said within five minutes of entering the after engine-room he overheard a report that the for'ard main feed tanks were clear of contamination.

Until Commander Simmonds ordered him to make

ready the for’ard boilers between 3.15 and 3.20 p.m. he had not heard any orders to change the state of any machinery. At this time accused said he would seek permission from Captain Valiant to slow the engines. Returning to the after engine-room, he thought- he entered it just behind accused. Commander Simmonds told him that Captain Valiant was happy to reduce speed, and the revolutions were then reduced from 168 to 60. About 5 p.m. he suggested to accused, who agreed, that he should “clutch-in” the for’ard propeller shafts. About 5.20 p.m. to 5.30 p.m., he said, there was a blackout. MADE REPORT Lieutenant-Commander Rolton said he reported contamination in the for’ard main feed tank to accused before the attempt to start the for’ard engines. He made the report to accused after ordering a silver-nitrate test because Lieutenant Arthurs had told

him of suspected contamination. “I indicated to the Commander (Engineering) that there was severe contamination and that I thought the water should be pumped out.”

Commander Simmonds told him to pass the order on and witness relayed it to Lieutenant Arthurs. Soon after Lieutenant Arthurs said he was having difficulty in pumping the water out, and he told him to pump to bilge. He thought this was done, although he did not believe it had been completed by the time the boilers were fired. Witness tried the for’ard engines ahead and “found nothing untoward.” He reported this to accused, at that time in the marineengineer’s office, and was told to take solidity tests of both for’ard boilers, while Commander Simmonds made a second trial of the engines. READY TO GO The solidity tests showed a high degree of contamination which he reported to accused, who was present during further confirming fests. Accused, said he was going to see the captain and tell him he was ready to proceed.

Three or four minutes later the order to go half ahead on both engines (100 revs.) was received on the telegraph. At that time Lieutenant Arthurs was in the engineroom, and the accused arrived back. That was when he saw the first evidence of priming, said the witness: Steam issued from glands before 40 revs, was reached.

Accused immediately ordered the engines to be stopped. A second attempt was made to start the engines, but witness did not know by whom. The second attempt, which lasted for less than one minute when similar evidence of priming was noticed, was made at about 8.30 p.m. The boilers remained steaming for about 30 minutes after the attempts to get under way, and then accused ordered one of the boilers to be shut down, after he had been to see the captain again. The engines were not used again until November 11.

Cross-examined, witness agreed he was “reasonably hazy” about his recollection of times throughout the whole incident and that his recollection of the events was also not clear and specific. He conceded that accused had never inhibited his position as senior engineer in any way during the events.

Witness said he was surprised at Lieutenant Arthurs ordering the pumping of the tank to be stopped. It would be disobedience of his orders.

Nor was he aware that Petty Officer Engineer Mechanic Smith had been pumping out through the condensers, which would lead to contamination of the main system.