The Role and Definition of Courtroom - Assignment Example

The Courtroom 1- What did you notice about the courtroom itself and the environment? Unlike the common scenes in most courtrooms where there are a number of audience, seated on two sides of the rows and the witness and lawyers in the front, in this case, the audience are few. We are shown the prosecutor legal team and aircraft personnel with few people on one side near the legal team. The judge is very close to defendants and the legal team seats close to each other just adjacent to the defendants. There are three men behind the legal team who seem keen and taking notes. I believe they are lawyers and advisers attached or contracted by the airport. 2- What were signs of nervousness of the witnesses (e.g.:  coughing, body language etc)? Ron Chippindale, chief inspector Air Accidents appears to lose confidence as he keeps bending his head and looking sides. He is unable to maintain a constant and prolonged gaze and sobs to the investigator. He looks up and keeps on swinging his body when the investigator is questioning. He also hinders as he tries to answers the judge in the second round of as he ‘cont’ then contained. Charles Hewitt- flight operations type the wrong degree and failed to check the figures to detect the error in the relevant computer file. Has a fixed gaze but appears apprehensive after admitting his errors. Barry Irvine flight operations: swallowed hard repeatedly before answering each question. 3- Notice the formality of the occasion The legal team is asking questions that require short answers or just Yes/No making the respondent attentive and direct to the point. The legal team is seen reading specific questions and viewpoints from files meaning that they are seeking specific answers from their summaries. Each respondent is asked questions that relate to their area of operations and in a way that tries to make them accept the liabilities. In turn, they are attentive and appear to think harder before answering each question. 4- Notice the different people involved in the trial (judge, prosecutor legal team, stenographers etc) and the amount of paperwork involved. The judge has some documents that are used to offer his viewpoint and to question Ron further. He is also reviewing files as the prosecutors ask questions. The prosecutor legal team has a long table with many files. One is keenly perusing them as the other questions the respondents and intermittently looks at the prosecutor. The stenographers’ writes a lot and a lot of noise are heard from the rattling machines. She takes notes as the prosecutor asks questions and when respondents give their views. The team seated behind the prosecutor legal team have files and takes notes continually especially when the judge and the prosecutors are asking questions. The Accident itself 5- What did you find from the video regarding the accident itself? Ron was blaming the crew for the accident as he defends the fact that the crew were not notified of the change of path which led to the collision. However, he admits that there was no detail explanation to the crew about the course leading to the accident. Mr. Charles altered the computer track as he admits that he advertently typed the wrong 1640 rather than 1660 in the VDU. Crews were not shown the topographical map where they would fly on. The briefing given to the crew by the militant contained omissions and inaccuracies that were not detected. There was also wrong substitution of the second captain. There was mysterious loss of important documents from the pilot. What was said from the proceedings “led the judge to conclude that Air New Zealand was to blame.” The captain and the crew were exonerated. 6- What were the two reports that were discussed and who produced each one? The first report discussed was compiled by the Ron Chippindale, chief inspector of air accidents Air NZ. The second one was Mahon Inquiry carried out by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. 7- Why were there two reports? After the release of Chipandele report, the public demanded for another report carried out by independent party. The commission was headed by Justice Peter Mahon. The report was released in April 1981 almost a year after the release of the first report. 8- What documents were destroyed and why do you think they were destroyed? The so called relevant documents that were destroyed by the executive decision of the company includes the first officer briefing documents, documents and briefcase from crash point and captain’s small black though retrieved had all pages missing. The post-accident conduct was for destroying the evidence. There was a lot of mismatch probably with the information the pilot had noted and what was supposed to be given and that would point the liability to the officers on the ground and therefore the airline. 9- What excuse did the Air NZ witness give for the destruction Air NZ argued that the CEO, Morrie Davis had instructed their destruction as they were irrelevant documents. The Interview with the Prime Minister of NZ 10- Why was the Prime Minister on the side of Air NZ? From the Prime Minister’s viewpoint, it is observable that he sides with the Air NZ due to the costs the government would incur following the claims and to defend the board whose reputation and decision is criticized by the opposition leader. Air NZ is a state corporation which makes the PM obliged to defend. Though it is heavily insured, in case the insurance fails to remit the money from the claims, the PM has made it plain that the state would not sacrifice the airline. The state may end up incurring millions of dollars from claims as the government would not sacrifice it. It is also observable that the opposition has tried to politicize the issue which may make it hard for the public to accept the decision by the members of the board. In turn, the PM defends it by noting that they would not make a snap decision and they need time to gather detail and evidence. In addition, he highlight to the public of how, if at all, the claims will be dealt with. Fierce allegations made by some people and the public may be damaging the State Corporation’s reputation. He supports his points by the inquiry carried out by the police association challenging the report and the reputation and career of people who have worked for long and given valuable service. 11- What could happen to an airline if it wasn’t pilot error and the airline was proved at fault? The Airline will end up facing double trouble as the relatives of the passengers would sue them for negligence. In turn, they would incur a lot of money dealing with separate cases above the 42,000 dollars payable to each passenger’s family without negligence. 12- Have any National airlines gone broke? No national airline has ever gone broke except the Air NZ subsidiary, Ansett. The Opinion of a lawyer 13- Under what Law/Act compensation would be allowed? Accident Compensation Act 14- At what convention and in what year was this Act passed? ACA Convention 2001 15- Could someone from overseas put in a separate (and higher) claim for compensation? Other citizens from other countries can sue and bring an action to the Airline from their country’s court. However, the compensations may be similar as insurance in aviation industry is done on worldwide basis. 16- What would they have to prove for this to be accepted as a separate claim? Margaret Vennel argues that anyone is likely to sue the airline depending on their claims and the kind of compensation. However, they may experience difficulties proofing that the airline was both reckless and had knowledge that accident would happen. Read More