GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

Hokitika Guardian, 9 January 1928, Page 1

GREYCLIFFE DISASTER

TAHITI TO BLAME. LINER’S SPEED EXCESSIVE. (Australian & N.Z. Cable Association.) SYDNEY, Jan. 7. Tho Court galleries were Mined to overflowing and there was also a large crowd gathered in the street outside "hen Mr Justice Campbell delivered Ins judgment in the Tahiti-Greycliffe collision inquiry this morning. On the previous day, Mr W. A. Holman, K.C. had submitted, on behalf of the Commonwealth Director of Navigation, that the Tahiti was travelling at an excessive speed at the time of the collision.

In giving his judgment to-day, Mr Justice Campbell said that, on tho evidence produced, he could not give a decision on the matter. However, the Judge added, the liner Tahiti’s speed was in excess of the ferry steamer Greyclifle’s speed. The captain of tho latter could not be held to be responsible, as he considered that his speed had at the time been in excess of the speed, stipulated in tho Harbour Regulations for overseas ships, and that, therefore, the Greycliffo could not be overtaken.

Mr Justice Campbell held that the Tahati’s sped exceeded the Harbour Regulations for overseas vessels. Mr Justice Campbell continued : From abreast of the northern end of Garden Island to tho place at which the collision occurred, the Tahiti was, in relation to the Greycliffo, an overtaking vessel, and, as such, she was subject to the rules governing an overtaking vessel; and I think that the cause of the collision was the failure of the Tahiti to observe that rule, and to keep out of the way of the Greycliffe. I am unable to accept the case P«t forward on behalf of the Tahiti ami those in charge of that vessel, to the effect that the. Grevelifie, when she "'as about four hundred feet away from tho Tahiti’s bridge and about four points on the starboard bon', suddenly swung to port with a sharp angle of turn that would head her almost north and to the west of Bradley’s Head. No one was able to suggest any reason for this as a voluntary act, and it is not otherwise sought to he explained or accounted for, and it is flatly denied by the master of the Greycliffo.

FERRY CAPTAIN EXONERATED SYDNEY, Tan. 7. Pronouncing on the Greycliffe disaster, Air Justice Campbell added that there was an alternative view of the reason for the two vessels being placed in such a position that a collision w as inevitable. This view was that it was the result of their normal progression upon their ordinary courses respectively, and that the situation must then have been potentially dangerous. The master of the Greycliffe was clearly totally ignorant of this, and of the proximity of the Tahiti. Rut those in control of the Tahiti, having the Greycliffc in full view, should have been aware of it, but apparently were not; and thus a momentary inattention to the Greycliffe, when the ferry steamer Wooll-arn was passing to port, afforded just sufficient time to turn a. potential danger into an imminent deadly peril. This was recognised by the pilot when he exclaimed “Good God !” and sounded two blasts of (lie whistle. He was constrained to accept this view by the force of the evidence, as well as by the consideration of the probabilities. It seemed more probable that the situation was allowed to develop dangerously in the moontary interval of distraction than that the tragedy was created by an unusual act on the part of an apparently sane man—that was by the master of the Greycliffe suddenly, without any conceivable motive, turning at a right angle from his course, and . going in a direction in which he had no desire to go. The evidence, said the Judge, indicated that there was the probability that the vessels were slightly converging. and that sufficiently to place them in dangerous proximity without any such sudden convergence l as was attributed to the Greycliffe.

Dealing with the speeds of the two vessels, he .said that it was not, on the evidence, possible to arrive at a definite estimate of the speed of either vessel, but in his judgment there was no room for doubt that the speed of the prescribed limit for outgoing deep sea vessels in that portion of the harbour. It must have exceeded the speed of the Greycliffe, which probably was going lietwecn nine and ten knots. The speed of the Tahiti was possibly about twelve knots an hour. There was no evidence, said the Judge, to show that the master of the Greycliffe had committed any positive breach of the rules of harbour navigation ; nor was there any evidence to show that he wfis guilty of any act of onnnission or commission amounting to a breach of his general duty to exercise care in the management of his vessel, which caused or contributed to to the collision.

Mr Justice Campbell stressed the necessity for authorities seeing that the Harbour regulations were vigorously carried out. He added that, after the collision, evorythng was done that could have been done to save life. No one on board the Tahiti, or elsewhere, who was in a position to aid exhibited any lack of concern and judgment, or effort for the mitigation of the immediate consequences of the disaster.

COlt ON TAD inquiry. SYDNEY. Jan. 8. The bearing of the Greycliffe disaster inquiry will be reopened at the Coroner’s Court to-morrow. Fifty witnesses have already been examined. There have lteen subpoenas nerved on one hundred other witnesses. Therefore the hearing is likely to be a r-cry lengthy one. LITIGATION TO FOLLOW. SYDNEY, Jan. 8. What action will follow Mr Justice Campbell’s findings in the Merino Court will depend either upon the Federal Director of Navigation or the State Superintendent of Navigation, who both have the power to decide, from the findings, whether material exists upon which any individual can be called upon to show cause why his certificate should not be cancelled. Though the parties have no right to appeal as against Mr Justice Campbell’s subsequent litigation will open the door to an appeal. Claims for compensation by those injured in the disaster, and by the dependants of those who lost their lives, are sure to he filled in the Supreme Court. Another possible development is an action at law between the Union S.S. Coy. and the Sydney Ferries Company.