Supreme Court decision one more step towards truth – Stand with Pike
Pike River families are ecstatic that the Supreme Court has today agreed with them that government Ministry MBIE acted against the law when it secretly bargained to allow Pike River CE Peter Whittle to make a cash payment to avoid facing any charges for his part in the disaster.
Pike River mother Sonya Rockhouse said the decision is a huge moral victory. “There has been so much wrong done with Pike both leading up to the explosion and afterwards. This decision helps right one of those wrongs.
“We need to know, all of New Zealand needs to know, that justice will be done. This decision alongside the new agency starts to deliver truth and justice for all of us.”
Pike River widow Anna Osborne said “It’s disgraceful that a government agency would have engaged in this kind of unlawful behavior and then have fought in the courts for so long to defend it.
“We have been fortunate to have people who have so willingly given up their time in this matter and so many others related to Pike River.
“Pike was one of the worst industrial disasters in New Zealand history and we have spent too long having to fight a government that used its huge resources against us. That’s a situation no New Zealander should ever be put in and we hope that our fight will mean it never happens to anyone else.”
Pike River father Bernie Monk is delighted by the decision. “What happened that day at Pike was criminal, today’s decision goes someway to setting history straight. But we will keep fighting until all of the truth of Pike River is on the record.”
Always we will stand with you all, as we fight for our collective rights to justice.
The media and even the bereft families are hailing this as a victory of the justice system, that will set a precedent to prevent this miscarriage from happening again. I don’t see it that way. They have go ten away with i scott free and in similar circumstances if they are important enough , and close enough to government they will do so again in a future similar situation.
The principle of justice not being able to be bought with money must be as old as the concept of justice itself. All the actors in the original decision to accept money for the bereft ,and not present evidence must have clearly understood that this was an action to thwart justice, not to serve it.
The fact that a determined pair of partners , and a determined lawyer have eventually established that it transgressed the law is hollow as the time delay manipulated by the system means that still no one will be held to account. This can be repeated indefinitely as long as the guilty parties are important enough , or close enough to the establishment.
D J S