Dispute over reason for flight
A helicopter flight from Southland to Canterbury that ended in tragedy was for the purpose of work, and not pleasure, the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) claims.
However, the pilot Murray Sarginson, who has been on trial in the Invercargill District Court, claims the flight was for pleasure, and not work.
The difference matters, because if Judge Bernadette Farnan decides it was for pleasure, then the charges laid against Sarginson under the Health and Safety at Work Act may become meaningless.
CAA lawyer Stephanie Bishop said the charges it had filed under the Act were contingent on the judge’s determination that the flight was ‘‘travel at work’’.
‘‘If it wasn’t at work, it wasn’t a workplace, therefore CAA has no designation to prosecute those charges, so all the Health and Safety at Work charges are dependant on that.’’
Sarginson is facing a total of five charges under both the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Civil Aviation Act, in relation to the April 30, 2016, crash that led to the death of his passenger – business partner and friend Liam Edwards, 32.
His three-week trial, which began in August in Queenstown, continued in the Invercargill District Court yesterday with Bishop giving her closing submission for CAA.
She said Sarginson’s Robinson R22 helicopter was overloaded and he was flying in poor visibility when he crashed near the Lindis Pass.
Sarginson, who was flying from Athol towards Mt Algidus Station with Edwards at the time of the crash, has denied both claims.
Bishop argued the main purpose of the trip from Athol to Mt Algidus Station was to do work at the station, but Sarginson’s lawyer, Colin Withnall QC had earlier in the trial said they were flying to Mt Algidus Station to go hunting.
Bishop said evidence had been given by two witnesses during the trial, including from Edwards’ wife, Jaimee, that suggested the trip was for work.
Sarginson and Edwards may have planned to go hunting while at Mt Algidus, but this was ‘‘incidental’’ to the primary purpose of the trip, which was for work.
The second issue she talked about was how much fuel was in the tanks of the aircraft.
‘‘If the tanks were in fact three quarters to full [as CAA claimed], then the aircraft was grossly overweight, therefore the defendant failed to ensure the aircraft was safely loaded.’’
The third issue was how much cloud there was when Sarginson tried to descend through it in his helicopter, Bishop said.
She said there was a thick layer of cloud at the time of the crash, and while there may have been holes, or gaps in the cloud, it presented a hazard for the aircraft and alternative options should have been considered.
Sarginson had descended through a gap in the cloud and exposed Edwards to risk of death or serious injury, she said.
‘‘If the cloud cover was extensive and the hole wasn’t as large Mr Sarginson has asked the judge to find, then the prosecution says going down that hole was reckless. It wasn’t exercising due diligence or reasonable care.’’
Sarginson’s lawyer, Colin Withnall QC, will give his closing submission later.
‘If it wasn’t at work, it wasn’t a workplace, therefore CAA has no designation to prosecute those charges.’ CAA lawyer Stephanie Bishop