Law Society Considers Investigating ‘Illegal’ Deal With Former Pike River Coal Mine Chief Peter Whittall

The Law Society is considering an investigation into the controversial settlement made with former Pike River Coal boss Peter Whittall over the 2010 mine disaster.

Just days after the 10th anniversary of the Pike River disaster, where 29 men lost their lives on November 19, 2010, the long-running saga has taken a new turn.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, WorkSafe put together a case that would have brought 12 charges against then-mine boss Whittall.

But there was great anger in December 2013 when the 12 health and safety charges against Whittall were dropped after he and the Pike River Coal offered a voluntary payment of $ 3.41 million, seeing $ 110,000 given to each of the families and two survivors.

The Crown said after an extensive review that “it was not appropriate to continue the prosecution against Mr. Whittall.”

Later, outraged families criticized the move as “blood money.”

Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne, who lost their loved ones on November 19, 2010, fought against that decision through the Superior Court, the Court of Appeals, and eventually before the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court.

And in November 2017, the Supreme Court ruled that the decision not to press charges against Whittall was illegal.

Today, on the third anniversary of that landmark decision, the New Zealand Law Society confirmed in a letter to Christopher Harder, who filed a formal complaint last month, that it is being referred to a Standards Committee “to consider initiating a ex officio investigation “.

The complaint, seen by the Herald, claims that Whittall attorney Stuart Grieve QC and later Christchurch crown attorney Brent Stanaway discredited the legal profession by entering into an “illegal agreement to pay money for the dismissal of all charges” and “quell a prosecution by deliberately misleading and misleading the sentencing judge [District Court Judge Jane Farish]”.

A spokeswoman for the Law Society told the Herald today that the law prevents them from commenting on whether they have received a complaint or “any details of the concerns that have been raised to us.”

All complaints must be considered first by the Standards Committees, which are made up of lawyers and lay people, the spokeswoman said.

“Upon receiving a complaint, the committee can investigate the complaint; give a direction for negotiation, conciliation and mediation; or decide not to take any action on the complaint,” he said.

The 2017 Supreme Court ruling determined that the agreement not to offer evidence was “in exchange for payment” and “constituted an agreement to quell the prosecution.”

“It was irrelevant that WorkSafe considered other factors in reaching the decision not to offer evidence,” the Supreme Court concluded.

“The payment was in exchange for the withdrawal of the prosecution and was illegal.”

The Supreme Court’s decision was unanimous and said that WorkSafe’s decision had been against the public interest.

The court judges noted that both parties accepted that the passage of time meant that trying to press charges now would not be appropriate.

Nigel Hampton QC, who took up the Sonya Rockhouse and Anna Osborne case, said at the time that it never made sense to fight for charges to be re-filed.

“The reality is that seven years have passed and we did not seek WorkSafe to reopen the prosecution.

“What we wanted was a clear decision that the principle still prevails over the pragmatic payment of money.”

He said the Supreme Court decision brought tears of joy to the Pike River families.

“It’s a very important decision in principle,” Hampton said.

“That principle is that criminal justice cannot be bought here in New Zealand, that we have a principled criminal justice system, that a deal to stifle a prosecution by paying money was always illegal and remains illegal in New Zealand.”