New Zealand volcano owners' conviction over deadly eruption overturned
The owners of a New Zealand volcano island where 22 tourists and local guides died in an eruption have had their criminal conviction for failing to keep visitors safe thrown out by a judge.
The 2019 explosion on Whakaari, known as White Island too, also left two dozen survivors seriously injured.
Most of the 47 people on the island during the explosion were US and Australian cruise ship passengers on a walking tour, along with their local guides.
Today's ruling absolves the company that owns the active volcano on New Zealand's North Island, Whakaari Management, from paying millions of dollars in restitution to the families of those killed and the survivors.
The company, which is run by three brothers, were found guilty in 2023 of breaching New Zealand's workplace health and safety law.
But Whakaari Management appealed the conviction in a three-day hearing last October at the High Court in Auckland.
The case hinged on whether the company - which granted tourism operators and scientific groups access to the volcano for a fee - should have been in charge of safety practices on the island under New Zealand's workplace health and safety laws.
Anyone in charge of a workplace must ensure the management of hazards and the safety of all there, including at entry and exit points.
Survivors gave emotional testimony during the 2023 trial that they had not been told the active volcano was dangerous when they paid to visit it. They were also not supplied with protective equipment, and many were wearing clothing that made their horrific burns more damaging.
In Friday's written ruling, Justice Simon Moore ruled the company did not have a duty under the relevant law to ensure that the walking tour workplace was without risks to health and safety.
He agreed with the company's lawyers that the firm only granted access to the bare land through permits - and should not have been legally considered an entity that managed or controlled the workplace.
The judge ruled it was not unreasonable for the company to rely on tourism operators and emergency management and scientific agencies to assess the risks of activities on the island and manage safety precautions.
The case had far-reaching consequences and changed the laws governing New Zealand's adventure tourism industry.
Operators must now take all reasonable steps to inform customers of any serious risks.
White Island, the tip of an undersea volcano also known by its Maori name Whakaari, was a popular tourist destination before the eruption.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Tottenham's transfer budget and two top targets with Thomas Frank as new manager
Tottenham Hotspur have hired former Brentford boss Thomas Frank as Ange Postecoglou's replacement following his dismissal - despite the Australian winning the Europa League and securing a Champions League spot Thomas Frank will be given big money to spend this summer to help rebuild Tottenham. Tottenham are already among the Premier League's big spenders but desperately need signings to revive their fortunes and boost their Champions League campaign. They have got Bournemouth winger Antoine Semenyo on their hit-list after his stand-out season on the South Coast. Spurs are unlikely to be the only suitors for Semenyo but his pace, creativity and threat has made him one of the Premier League 's most promising players. Bryan Mbeumo was a firm favourite with Frank at Brentford but Manchester United believe they are in the driving seat. They are prepared to back the Dane heavily in the transfer market but there are still unlikely to be superstar signings because they have shied away of spending £100m-plus on a player. But they are ready to strengthen the squad and bring in new faces but there will also be departures with Richarlison likely to go as his £60m move has proved to be another underwhelming transfer for Spurs. His former club Everton are one of several clubs linked with a cut-price move for the Brazilian. Frank's arrival at Spurs comes as Tottenham have filed High Court proceedings against Manchester United co-owner Jim Ratcliffe's company Ineos over a terminated sponsorship agreement. Court records show Spurs filed a commercial claim at the High Court against Ineos Automotive on Thursday, though no documents are available. Chemicals firm Ineos agreed a five-year deal with Spurs in 2022 – before Ratcliffe bought a stake in United – for Ineos Grenadier to become the London team's official 4×4 vehicle partner. Ineos said in a statement: 'Ineos Automotive has been a partner of Tottenham Hotspur since 2022, expanding on a partnership agreement that Ineos Group had in place with the club since 2020. We have a contractual right to terminate our partnership contract and in December 2024 exercised that right.' In March it was announced Ineos had reached a settlement with New Zealand Rugby in relation to a sponsorship deal. The previous month, NZR had said it had launched legal proceedings against Ineos after alleging that the first instalment of 2025 sponsorship money due under a six-year agreement struck in 2021 had not been paid. Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.
Daily Mirror
a day ago
- Daily Mirror
Michelle Mone told it would be 'disappointing' if PPE firm made little profit
The Department for Health and Social Care is suing PPE Medpro for £130m after Baroness Mone acted as an introducer, saying the gowns were not sterile and unfit for use - the company denies the claims Conservative peer Baroness Michelle Mone was told by a boss of a PPE firm that it would be disappointing if the company made little or no profit, the High Court heard. Her husband Doug Barrowman was at the court yesterday for the second day of a £130million trial over PPE Medpro, a company he backed. The Department of Health and Social Care is seeking the return of £122m it spent on surgical gowns bought during the pandemic along with £8.6m in storage and transportation costs. The High Court heard that the gowns were not sterile and unusable in the NHS when delivered in 2020. PPE Medpro said it "categorically denies" breaching the contract, and its lawyers claimed it has been "singled out for unfair treatment". The company was backed by a consortium led by Mr Barrowman and the initial contact with the government's PPE team came from Baroness Mone. Written submissions in the case state that Baroness Mone was told by firm boss Anthony Page that it would be "extremely disappointing" if it made little or no profit. A few days before the contract was signed for 25 million gowns, fewer than the 50 million originally proposed, Mr Page wrote to her, saying: "Tomorrow we will submit our best price. As I said our margin will be tiny or possibly nothing at all as we have bought all the production capacity upfront. We really need to achieve a positive outcome to this extremely disappointing situation." Opening the trial on Wednesday, Paul Stanley KC, for the DHSC, said: "This case is simply about whether 25 million surgical gowns provided by PPE Medpro were faulty." Mr Stanley said 99.9999% of the gowns should have been sterile under the terms of the contract - equating to one in a million being unusable. 140 gowns were later tested for sterility, with 103 failing, and he added: "Whatever was done to sterilise the gowns had not achieved its purpose, because more than one in a million of them was contaminated when delivered. Mr Stanley said that the gowns were 'unusable in the NHS or any other setting', adding: 'Without the relevant assurances of conformity that the gowns met sterility requirements, the potential impact on safety was such that they could seriously harm or kill patients and so could not be released for use.' In his written submissions, Charles Samek KC, for PPE Medpro, said the "only plausible reason" for the gowns becoming contaminated was due to "the transport and storage conditions or events the gowns were subject", after they had been delivered. He added the testing did not happen until several months after the gowns were rejected, and the samples selected were not "representative of the whole population", meaning "no proper conclusions may be drawn". He said the DHSC's claim was "contrived and opportunistic" and PPE Medpro had been "made the 'fall guy' for a catalogue of failures and errors" by the department. He said: "It has perhaps been singled out because of the high profiles of those said to be associated with PPE Medpro, and/or because it is perceived to be a supplier with financial resources behind it. "In reality, an archetypal case of 'buyer's remorse', where DHSC simply seeks to get out of a bargain it wished it never entered into, left, as it is, with over £8 billion of purchased and unused PPE as a result of an untrammelled and uncontrolled buying spree with taxpayers' money." Bra tycoon Baroness Mone, 53, and Isle of Manbased entrepreneur Mr Barrowman, 60, who wed in 2020, both deny wrongdoing. They are facing a separate National Crime Agency investigation into PPE Medpro. A PPE Medpro spokesman said it "categorically denies breaching its obligations" and will "robustly defend" the claim. The trial is due to last five weeks, with a judgment expected at a later date.
Scotsman
a day ago
- Scotsman
Private schools lose High Court legal challenge to overturn VAT fees
Private schools have failed in a bid to get VAT being applied to school fees from January 1 overturned. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... A group of private schools, pupils and their parents have lost High Court challenges over the imposition of VAT on school fees. Several schools, children who attend them and their parents, previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy of applying VAT to fees is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. School girls arrive at Glenalmond College for the first day of term. Legal action is being taken that could impact on the decision to charge VAT for private schools. Picture: Jeff| Getty Images From January 1, all education and boarding services provided by a private school became subject to VAT at the standard rate of 20 per cent. The decision to introduce VAT fees impacted on all private schools in Scotland, with the average increase in cost to parents being 14 per cent. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation did interfere with some of the group's human rights, there was a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide … and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told some children were privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Applications have been made in Edinburgh to move students from private to state secondary schools | Monkey Business - Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She said: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. 'We will continue to work to ensure the government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad During a hearing in April, Lord David Pannick KC, representing one group of children and their parents, previously told the court in London that for some children currently in private schools their needs are not met by state schools, but the new law applies 'irrespective' of a family's need.' The High Court was told that as well as religious beliefs and SEN, some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, or because they are only temporarily in the UK and need to be educated in line with their home national curriculum. Bruno Quintavalle, representing four small Christian schools and parents who have sent their children to them, also previously said the 'ill-thought-out proposal introduced in haste' placed parents in 'impossible positions'.
