Summary

New Zealand. Court of Appeal Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of…

But if the Court has jurisdiction to determine the true scope of a Commission's inquiry and require the Commission to keep within that scope there are obvious arguments that it should have a corresponding jurisdiction in the matter of findings. A vital part of the constitutional role of the Courts is to ensure that all public authorities, whether they derive their powers from statute or the prerogative, act within the limits of those powers.
Source: Gutenberg

New Zealand. Court of Appeal Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of…

An inquiry into whether any person caused or contributed to the crash by an act or omission in respect of his duties is an inquiry into liabilities. But that is less important for present purposes than the fact that the Amendment Act also extended the concept of statutory powers of decision to those "affecting" the rights of any person. The purpose was manifestly to make the ambit of review under the Act at least as wide as at common law.
Source: Gutenberg

New Zealand. Court of Appeal Judgments of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on Proceedings to Review Aspects of the Report of…

The question of causation is obviously a difficult one, as shown by the fact that the Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Air Accidents in his report came to different conclusions on it. But it is not this Court's concern now. This is not an appeal. Parties to hearings by Commissions of Inquiry have no rights of appeal against the reports. The reason is partly that the reports are, in a sense, inevitably inconclusive. Findings made by Commissioners are in the end only expressions of opinion. They would not even be admissible in evidence in legal proceedings as to the cause of a disaster.
Source: Gutenberg

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature