Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 56781	2005-04-15 03:44:00	The Berryman Report and government corruption.	braindead (1685)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
345005	2005-04-21 03:37:00	I'm not sure that the Berrymans would come out entirely unscathed by the findings of an an enquiry in to the affair and review of the Butcher Report.	Murray P (44)
345006	2005-04-21 03:41:00	any chance you could elaborate on that?	Metla (12)
345007	2005-04-21 05:05:00	.....Im all for blowing up parliment,though we will have to hit the Destiny Church at the same time, otherwise they will just declare themselves godly and in charge. Now it would be fun to see the next Pope wearing a black t-shirt and preaching the 'gospel' from a pulpit in the debating chamber!	Shortcircuit (1666)
345008	2005-04-21 08:21:00	any chance you could elaborate on that? Maybe. I'll think on it, not my reasoning but whether I will.	Murray P (44)
345009	2005-04-21 08:49:00	Maybe. I'll think on it, not my reasoning but whether I will. I would be keen to here you elaborate on both.	Sam I Am (1679)
345010	2005-04-21 09:14:00	No need for PMs Google will get you a copy no problem at all. There are too many out there now to kill them all. Took me all of two minutes to get it on screen. My opinion? Bugger the politics, what about the poor people ruined? The only hint of criticism against them in the Butcher report is the suggestion that they may have influenced some choices of building materials, but those choices were not the fundamental flaw. Cheers Billy 8-{)	Billy T (70)
345011	2005-04-21 10:34:00	Ok here goes, but firstly it ain't the Berryman report . One is a dissertation by Rob Moodie the other is the Butcher Report on the bridge collapse from an engineering perspective . The bridge was built as a good deed by the Amy on public land for private use as a replacement for a previous bridge on the same site . I assume this was something that would gretaly benefit the Berrymans' and give the Army the opportunity for real life training . I have no idea whether the land is Territorial Authority reserve, riparian reserve or crown land . I would also doubt the use of the word "owners" to describe the Berrymans relationship to the structure, controlling agents, caretakers, beneficiaries, perhaps, not my area . While (apparently) the report sets out errors in the design methodology and calculations used in the construction of the bridge, the failure of the bridge structure is (apparently) attributed to the use of an unsuitable timber species, in lieu of the more durable species/treated timber originally specified, for the load bearing transoms which, consequently decayed . That decay was further exacerbated by the lamination (rather than solid members) of the transoms which was in turn exacerbated by the omission of a flashing system to prevent water ingress into the lamination and thus accelerating the decay and therfore reducing time to failure of the transoms . By good luck, the design deficiencies had no or little bearing on the failure, the beafing up of the decking by the Berrymans improved the structure somewhat, whereas there is a suggestion of asbuilt construction deficiencies, perhaps so . The berrymans supplied, or supplied the funds for the purchase of materials . The Army supplied the design, logistics and labour at no cost (which does not mean it should be of no value or deficient) . The Berrymans had right of review of the design and did so with the assisatnce of a contractor with bridge building experience . The decision to change the timber transoms was made at about the time other structural review and changes were made . The change to a cheaper and more readily available timber (I don't really buy the latter, any mill will custom cut within physical limits) must have been approved by the supervising (Army) person, at some level, but paid for by the Berrymans . Although the Berrymans supplied a means of flashing the transom which was not used in the construction, that flashing would have been temporary at best and have only delayed the failure for a relatively short time . While the report does not belabour the point of the supply of material, in my opinion he is alluding to the transoms in particular and to a lesser extent the stringers . Otherwise there is a big so what to the comment . There was apparently no ongoing inspection and maintenace schedule in place . However Mr Berryman cared for the wear decking by keeping it securely fixed . But for; the timber used for the transoms the bridge would not have collapsed, a regime of qualified inspection of the bridge, may have prevented the collapsed . Becuase the design and construction of the bridge was not subject to normal regualtory control there were none of the usual checks and reviews of design and construction and, post construction there was no inspection regime therefore no possibility of an indication of it's failings and premature failure . That the report was not in the open at the initial inquest and subsequent hearings and that the affair has gone on for such a long time and had the consequences for the Berrymans that it has, is appalling . There is also no doubt in my mind that; OSH lept in where they should have watched, that other players have acted in poor faith . However, any enquiry worth it's salt that has access to all the facts would not, in my opinion, completely exonerate the Berrymans, more parties may be brought in to the mix . We also do not know the reasons why the judge would not even review the Butcher report, on the face of it, it seems to be an error of judgement *cough* . Maybe any enquiry should look at the broader picture in an attempt to undestand the processes that lead a lack of care and duty of care and consequently to the death of a person and the intolerably long drawn out outcome . It couldn't happen again surely?? What a mess .	Murray P (44)
345012	2005-04-22 01:10:00	We also do not know the reasons why the judge would not even review the Butcher report, on the face of it, it seems to be an error of judgement *cough* . Had a look at the case headnote (not the full High Court decision) and it seems quite technical . Here is an edited version: "Prior to the inquest the Army had convened a Court of Inquiry at which B gave evidence . Berryman’s present substantive proceedings sought review of Solicitor-General’s refusal to exercise his powers under ss 38(2) and 40(1) Coroners Act to order a new inquest . The Associate Judge granted B discovery of relevant parts of the Court of Inquiry report and transcript . S-G and NZDF now sought review of that judgment . Did S-G act under ss 38 or 40 as part of the Crown? Wild J did not consider the Crown, for the purposes of s 27, was a single indivisible entity . He noted S-G’s unique constitutional position . While it might be correct to treat S-G as part of the Crown in some of his capacities, it was not correct to say he was the Crown in all of them . In his Law Officer capacity he was politically independent . Application of the “control” test to the Coroners Act powers indicated the S-G in exercising them was not part of the Executive Government or the Crown . Wild J held the Associate Judge erred in finding the Crown was a party and discovery was available under s 27 . The discovery order was unnecessary as the material had already been discovered . The public interest in Coroners inquests had to be balanced against the public interest in maintaining the effectiveness of Armed Forces Courts of Inquiry . He did not agree with the Associate Judge that Court of Inquiry evidence, if discovered, would not in terms of R 158 Armed Forces Discipline Rules of Procedure be used “against any person” . His Honour set aside the discovery orders . "	Winston001 (3612)
345013	2005-04-22 02:05:00	Had a look at the case headnote (not the full High Court decision) and it seems quite technical . Here is an edited version: "Prior to the inquest the Army had convened a Court of Inquiry at which B gave evidence . Berryman’s present substantive proceedings sought review of Solicitor-General’s refusal to exercise his powers under ss 38(2) and 40(1) Coroners Act to order a new inquest . The Associate Judge granted B discovery of relevant parts of the Court of Inquiry report and transcript . S-G and NZDF now sought review of that judgment . I assume "B" is Butcher or is it Berryman? Either could apply except the last para suggests the latter . Did S-G act under ss 38 or 40 as part of the Crown? Wild J did not consider the Crown, for the purposes of s 27, was a single indivisible entity . He noted S-G’s unique constitutional position . While it might be correct to treat S-G as part of the Crown in some of his capacities, it was not correct to say he was the Crown in all of them . In his Law Officer capacity he was politically independent . Unique, yes . Politically independent, perhaps *cough* . Anybody got a leopard, I need to do some spot research?? Application of the “control” test to the Coroners Act powers indicated the S-G in exercising them was not part of the Executive Government or the Crown . Wild J held the Associate Judge erred in finding the Crown was a party and discovery was available under s 27 . The discovery order was unnecessary as the material had already been discovered . Already been discovered, where, when, was it available to the wider court? The public interest in Coroners inquests had to be balanced against the public interest in maintaining the effectiveness of Armed Forces Courts of Inquiry . He did not agree with the Associate Judge that Court of Inquiry evidence, if discovered, would not in terms of R 158 Armed Forces Discipline Rules of Procedure be used “against any person” . So, who's been protected, why the need for the protection in this instance or is no reason necessary so long as NSDF requests it (and had the ear of SG no doubt additionally to the application) . This is the bit that does not seem at all kosher to me . It may be correct in the strictest sense of the applicable laws, but the SG can overturn that, I take it . His Honour set aside the discovery orders . " How do you do that if it's already been discovered, hasen't the horse bolted or, as suggested above, the discovered "evidence" was not admitted to court?	Murray P (44)
345014	2005-04-22 03:00:00	Murray: B = Berryman . Your questions highlight the difficulty of casenotes and my editing for this forum . A casenote is only a summary of the legal points in a case . Always read the case report for the full decision . Unfortunately I can't track it down online - too recent . I had to edit to make it brief enough to read . Unique, yes . Politically independent, perhaps *cough* . Anybody got a leopard, I need to do some spot research?? I think we can view the Solicitor-General (who is essentially a public servant) as independant . The Attorney-General however is a politician - oddly enough Michael Cullen at present . Already been discovered, where, when, was it available to the wider court? Don't know but I suspect the problem is that the report was seen by Moodie, Berryman, and the Judge . But not entered into the public record of the Court which means it can't be used in a new Coronors hearing . So, who's been protected, why the need for the protection in this instance or is no reason necessary so long as NSDF requests it (and had the ear of SG no doubt additionally to the application) . This is the bit that does not seem at all kosher to me . It may be correct in the strictest sense of the applicable laws, but the SG can overturn that, I take it . Possibly the Army engineers . They are soldiers subject to military law . It is seen as against public policy that a soldier doing his job, should be liable to a military tribunal, and then liable again to a civil court . Double jeopardy . How do you do that if it's already been discovered, hasen't the horse bolted or, as suggested above, the discovered "evidence" was not admitted to court? Yes . Discovery of documents is simply each party revealing all documents to each other . Only a few of the documents might be used in the hearing . I have to guess but the Army report was only disclosed but not admissable at the hearing . Probably privileged .	Winston001 (3612)
1 2 3 4 5