No challenge was made to the views expressed by Mr Woodford nor was he called to give evidence.  And no evidence to any contrary effect was given by anybody.  Yet apart from the passing reference to the matter in paragraph 349 of the Report the point of view Mr Woodford expressed seems to have been given no attention.  The extent of the evidence which could have been given by Mr Woodford if he had been called as a witness is indicated by his affidavit now put before this Court.  The importance of the letter seems obvious.  The bag being empty when it was seen only 18 hours after the aircraft had crashed it is difficult to understand how it could have any significance when found in that same condition three days later.  Yet in this part of the Report it is left as a central issue.  Mr Woodford’s own concern about all this is indicated in the lengthy affidavit which he prepared for the purpose of exonerating Captain Gemmell.  It was sworn by him on 21st May 1981 not very long after the Report of the Royal Commission had been made public.

A final comment should be made about Captain Gemmell’s position.  It concerns a submission made on his behalf to this Court that “In view of the ‘not proven’ verdict against Captain Gemmell and the various critical statements made about him it is a remarkable thing that he was given no opportunity for further comment when the Commissioner decided to make further enquiries of the police sergeant and Mr Chippindale at the conclusion of the hearing of evidence”.  If Captain Gemmell was to be left enveloped in “justifiable suspicion” this is something that certainly should have been done.  Indeed if the post-hearing investigation had been sufficiently developed the Commissioner might have been satisfied (as now appears from the affidavit of Mr Stanton) that the police officer who gave information to counsel assisting the Commission about one or two flight bags was not even in Antarctica while Captain Gemmell was there.  The affidavit indicates that the police officer arrived to take charge of the police store only on the evening of 6th December and by then Captain Gemmell had been back in New Zealand for two days.

Airline’s Attitude at Inquiry

This matter requires brief comment.  It involves the issue as to whether Air New Zealand adopted an uncompromising approach to the matters under consideration by the Royal Commission so that the proceedings were unnecessarily prolonged.  Concerning the matter the Commissioner said this in the Appendix to the Report dealing with the awards of costs, which must be mentioned later: