This is a mirror of the original document found at homepages.paradise.net.nz/teegee,
it has since been taken down. Except for the HTML being tidied up and the Report
scans being re-aligned and thumbnailed, the document is unaltered. I have
also added a document
map at the bottom.
Moodie & Co Principal
Robert A Moodie LL.B. (Hons.) Ph.D
Barristers & Solicitors
Dispute Resolution & Litigation Lawyers, 11
Halcombe Rd, Feilding
Phone (06) 323 4636
Facsimile (06) 323 4623
Mobile (027) 446 6697
11th March 2005
Statement by Dr Rob Moodie regarding the Berryman Bridge
Collapse in 1994
Kenneth Richards was killed when the laden light truck he was driving plunged
30 metres into the Retaruke River on the 22nd March 1994 after two transoms (the
supporting beams suspended from wire ropes running from side to side beneath the
bridge) snapped causing the Te Rata Station bridge to collapse.
Construction of the Te Rata Station bridge was completed on 22nd March 1986,
and it collapsed on the 22nd March 1994. It was therefore only 8 years old to
the day, when the structure failed.
The bridge provided access to Te Rata Station, a property owned by Mrs
Margaret Berryman and farmed by her husband Keith. The bridge was constructed on
Crown land at the entrance to the property by the New Zealand Army. The
construction was undertaken as a community support training exercise. The Bridge
was designed and engineered by 2nd Lieutenant J R Armstrong of the New Zealand
Army Engineering Corps, and constructed by Army Staff under Lt Armstrong's
supervision.
Keith and Margaret Berryman paid for all the materials used in the
construction of the Te Rata Bridge. The original design called for treated pine
timber to be used in the construction of the transoms and stringers that
comprised the support structure of the bridge. However, when the bridge was
built treated pine of suitable size was not available. Oregan timber from a
demolition site was purchased and used, but only after Lt Armstrong viewed the
Oregan timber at the demolition site from which it was obtained on Friday 24th
January 1986, and approved it as being suitable for the stringers and transoms,
that is, for the structural timbers of the bridge.
The Coroner's Inquest into the death of Kenneth
Richards
A Coroner's Inquest (a judicial inquiry) into the death of Kenneth Rickards
was held at Taumaranui in February 1997. At that inquest the New Zealand Army
gave evidence that the Te Rata Bridge was properly constructed in accordance
with UK and Australian Army manuals.
However, the Coroner formed a view that Lt Armstrong was inexperienced and
appeared to lack formal technical qualifications for bridge building. He also
noted that a senior warrant officer employed on the project also lacked design
experience or qualification. On the 2nd May 1997 the New Zealand Army received
advice from the Coroner that he intended to make adverse comment in his findings
about these matters.
In response to advice from the Coroner that he intended to make adverse
comment directed at the Army, the Army made submissions through senior counsel
insisting that the bridge had been properly and adequately designed, engineered
and well built, and represented that the sole reason for the collapse of the Te
Rata Bridge was the failure of the Mr and Mrs Berryman to properly maintain the
structure.
As a result of the submissions made on behalf of the New Zealand Army by
their legal Counsel Mr McGuire, the Coroner changed his initial view and
concluded that the design and construction of the bridge by the New Zealand Army
was entirely sound. He concluded -
I had initially considered that perhaps the 2nd Lieutenant's designs were
not checked by his superiors but I accept Mr McGuire's submission that they in
fact were.
My concerns with the New Zealand Army is simply that the Court would perhaps
have thought that this project was better left under the supervision of an
officer of more experience than a 2nd Lieutenant ...but... in particular I refer
to Mr McGuire's submissions...The bridge was well built. There is no
problem.
I emphasis that there is no suggestion here that the standard of construction
of the bridge was in any way lacking.
After finding that the bridge had been soundly engineered and constructed,
and after making oblique reference to the speed of Mr Richard's truck possibly
being a contributing cause of the bridge failure, the Coroner then emphatically
concluded that the bridge collapse was due to disrepair resulting from the lack
of a planned programme of inspection and maintenance on the part of Mr Keith
Berryman.
Army Court of Inquiry
In September 1994 the Army convened a Court of Inquiry into the collapse of
the Te Rata Bridge and that Court of Inquiry concluded, in summary, that -
-
Lt Armstrong's design of the bridge deck was unsatisfactory and
resulted in variable load factors and stringers that were undersized;
and ......
-
The use of Oregan timber for the main structural members of the bridge deck
when it was obviously intended to be semi-permanent or permanent in nature was
unwise; and
-
The bridge was not inspected or approved for use and no post construction
inspections were carried out.
After the collapse of the Te Rata Station Bridge Keith and Margaret Berryman
were charged with offences under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 by
the Occupational Safety and Health division (OSH) of the Department of Labour.
These charges were dismissed by Judge Abbott in the New Plymouth District Court.
OSH maintained it's interest in the matter however, and, unusually, were
represented at the Coroner's Inquest by New Plymouth Crown Prosecutor Mr Tim
Brewer. Mr Brewer is a Brigadier in the New New Zealand Territorial Army, and is
the present Judge Advocate General of the New Zealand Defence Force.
At the time of the Coroner's inquest both Mr McGuire and Mr Brewer knew full
well that the Army had conducted a Court of Inquiry into the collapse of the
Bridge. Yet neither Counsel for the Army or OSH advised the Coroner of that
fact. Brigadier Brewer had not only been informed in writing of the Army Court
of Inquiry, he had also been informed of the identities of witnesses before the
Court of Inquiry. He knew that the recently retired Colonel Commandant of the
Army Engineering Corps had carried out an examination into the cause of the
bridge failure and had given evidence on the matter to the Court of Inquiry.
Neither Mr McGuire nor Mr Brewer informed the Coroner that the Army had
convened a Court of Inquiry and had reached conclusions about the cause of the
failure of the bridge structure. Instead the Army presented evidence and made
submissions to the Coroner that were quite contrary to the knowledge of the New
Zealand Army High Command about the real reason for the collapse of the bridge.
In short, the evidence and submissions of the Army and OSH were not true. In the
result that evidence, and those submissions completely perverted the course of
justice at the Coroner's formal inquest into the death of Kenneth Richards. By
this evidence and submissions, the coronial inquiry was completely usurped and
corrupted.
The Butcher Report
Mr Butcher is a qualified and experienced civil engineer. When in retirement
Mr Butcher examined the cause of the collapse of the Te Rata Bridge at the
request of the New Zealand Army. Mr Butcher's entire report and evidence before
the Court of Inquiry follows this explanatory note. In his report on the cause
of the bridge collapse Mr Butcher found -
-
There was nothing in the design calculations document supplied to him that
would suggest that the calculations have been subjected to a checking
protocol, or QA procedures, or a peer review; and
-
There was no reference (in the design procedures and material properties
listed) to applicable New Zealand standards such as NZS 3603:1981, Code of
Practice for Timber Design, nor to documents such as the Bridge Manual 1956
and the Highway Bridge Design Brief CDP 701 1978 of the MWD. The latter
documents set out the recommended practice for the design of bridges in New
Zealand at that time; and
-
The allowable stresses used in the design of the timber members were far
too high for the grade and timber species used; and
-
The designer used the FRI Bulletin No 41 without adjustment to determine
allowable stresses in bending and sheer ... this was an error of
judgment...the information contained in Bulletin 41 has been misinterpreted;
and
-
The design procedure for the timber deck structure was unsatisfactory and
resulted in variable load factors and stringers that were undersized. It was
fortuitous that the owner elected to install substantial running planks over
the stringers during construction of the deck and kept them well nailed
throughout the life of the bridge. Full or partial composite action with the
stringers was thus possible and together with the greater transverse load
distribution provided additional stringer load
-
Capacity not taken into account in the design; and
-
The design of the deck structure could not be considered as adequate for
the bridges intended use but (due to the changes fortuitously made by Mr
Berryman) the inadequacies of the design procedure did not contribute to the
failure of the transom nor to the resulting collapse of the section of the
bridge; and
-
The decision to use untreated timber in the original bridge cannot be
supported...Oregan is durable when continually immersed in water, but has a
very short life when exposed to the weather or when subject to alternate
wetting and drying; and
-
The collapse of three bays of the timber deck structure on 22nd March 1994,
was due to the failure in bending of a timber transom when subjected to the
rear axel load of 23 kN - (about 2350kgs which was within the design
parameters) of a vehicle crossing the bridge; and
-
Inspection of the transom...shows considerable and serious decay of
surfaces which had been in contact including the internal faces of the
laminated member (the transom); and
-
The transom failed ...due to...an almost 50% reduction in the nominal
strength of the member in bending. The reduction in strength of the member was
in my opinion entirely due to decay of the untreated timber; and
-
Oregan timber should not have been used for the main structural members of
the deck structure of the bridge when it was obviously intended to be semi
permanent or permanent in nature; and
-
Several additional factors contributed to the collapse...the decision to
use two 300 x 75 beams bolted together for the transoms in place of a solid
300 x 150 member. The interface was not flashed and permitted the entry of
water to the centre of the laminate which, with the oxygen available in the
gap, encouraged fungal growth and accelerated the rate of decay. The effective
life of the member would have been significantly reduced as a
result.
In short the evidence of Mr Butcher was, as the Coroner had at first
intuited, that, due to a lack of technical qualification and experience,
Lt Armstrong's design and calculations were completely botched, and he
had not received adequate guidance and supervision by more experience
superiors. The single cause of the failure of the Te
Rata bridge.
There can be no doubt whatsoever that whilst there was a litany of serious
failures in the design and construction of the Te Rata Bridge, the cause
of the early failure of the structure (after a life of only 8 years) was due
entirely to the lamination of the transom timbers without providing a flashing
(a raincoat) to keep water from penetrating the gap in the laminate. This was a
basic design and construction failure. The full responsibility for this failure
rested entirely with the New Zealand Army.
The failure to flash the laminate was further seriously aggravated by
the fact that, on the advice of a builder friend, Mr Keith Berryman had actually
purchased, and provided to the Army Engineers, sufficient three ply malthoid to
provide all of the transoms (and stringers) with a malthoid raincoat. This
raincoat was for the very purpose of preventing water penetrating the join in
the laminate. Yet this flashing material was not used
by the engineers as requested by Mr Berryman.
The extent of the decay in the laminated transoms was not visible to Mr and
Mrs Berryman because the decay that Mr Butcher found significantly reduced the
life of the timber was in fact causing rot from inside to out. The stringers
were made of the same timber as the transoms and, although undersized, they had
not failed due to any surface decay. This finding of Mr Butcher is important
because it confirmed that the Oregan timber (apart from the timber decaying due
to the un-flashed lamination) had not in fact reached the end of its useful
life.
Butcher principal findings not carried into Court of Inquiry
finding
It was never doubted that the failure of two transoms caused the
bridge structure to fail. And in paragraphs 19 and 20 Mr Butcher is quite
specific on why the transoms failed. Yet these findings of Mr Butcher are
nowhere to be found in the Court of Inquiry Report. So even at the stage of the
compilation of it's own Court of Inquiry conclusions, Army brass deliberately
omitted reference in the Court of Inquiry findings to the evidence that
conclusively established that design and construction flaws by Army staff caused
the bridge to collapse and the consequential death of Kenneth
Richards.
Corrupted process
The Defence Forces Rules of Disciplinary Procedure prevent any Court of
Inquiry evidence or finds being used in any other proceedings, and also prohibit
any evidence or report of a Court of Inquiry being shown to any person without
the express consent of the Commanding Officer of the service involved. In other
words the proceedings and findings of a military court of inquiry, are by
statutory regulation, absolutely privileged unless a Commanding Officer approves
their release.
With knowledge of this protection from disclosure of the truth of what
occurred, and after having omitted reference in it's own Court of Inquiry
findings about what occurred, the New Zealand Army then deliberately and
knowingly misled the Coroner about the cause of the collapse of the Te Rata
Bridge. Moreover, when Margaret and Keith Berryman commenced proceedings in the
High Court for a Judicial Review of their declined application to have the
Coroner's Inquest reopened, the New Zealand Defence Force vigorously opposed an
application for open disclosure of the Butcher and other evidence given before
the Court of Inquiry.
Continuing cover up by army command
In the High Court the dishonesty, duplicity and corrupt behaviour of the New
Zealand Army was brought forcibly to the attention of Justice Wild in the
context of allegations that the New Zealand Army had scandalised the Coroner's
and High Court by presenting evidence and submissions that were contrary to the
Army's knowledge of the real reason for the collapse of the Te Rata Bridge.
Justice Wild completely ignored Counsel's allegations against the New Zealand
Army, he declined an application that he personally view the Butcher Report, and
he ordered the Butcher and other Court of Inquiry evidence not be discovered. He
also awarded costs against Mr and Mrs Berryman in an amount yet to be
determined.
Subsequent to Judge Wild's decision, on the application of the New Zealand
Defence Force, and without any opportunity for Counsel for Mr and Mrs Berryman
to be heard, the writer personally, was ordered by Justice William Young to
return all copies of the Butcher Report to the New Zealand Army.
Because of concern about what was occuring in high places, immediately after
Justice Wild's decision the writer released a copy of the Butcher Report to
Television New Zealand for publication . On the Sunday programme. Regrettably,
the Sunday Programme then advised the Army of it's intention to publish. The
writer now expects that injunction proceedings will shortly be commenced by the
New Zealand Army to have the Butcher Report and all other evidence before the
Army Court of Inquiry suppressed from publication.
In other words, the Crown is now intent upon obtaining comprehensive Court
orders to ensure that any documented evidence of the Army's corrupt behaviour
remains secret. Fortuitously the Army is thwarted in this endeavour. A member of
Parliament has come into possession of the Butcher Report a copy of which is
appended to this communication. This document is from another source and is
unaffected by any Court orders or processes at this point in time.
Continuing official indifference to corruption
Keith and Margaret Berryman have been impoverished and their health
destroyed, by the New Zealand Army and OSH falsely accusing them of
responsibility for the death of Kenneth Richards. For the New Zealand Army the
motive was the shifting of blame for Kenneth Richard's death from it's own staff
onto Keith and Margaret Berryman's. For OSH it was misguided staff in a new
occupational safety regime trying to create an impression of setting standards
for structures on farm properties. However, OSH was represented by a highly
ranked Army Officer and this fact obviously gives rise to further questions
requiring answers.
Prime Minister Helen Clarke and former Attorney General Margaret
Wilson have been repeatedly informed of the corruption that occurred. Both have
elected to turn a blind eye.
In the context of extremely serious accusations of corrupting justice
levied against the New Zealand Army Command, Justice Wild was asked to, and had
power to, order the Butcher Report handed up for his inspection so he could
determine the truth of those allegations for himself. Yet he declined to do so.
Counsel employed by the New Zealand Defence Force have placed evidence before
the Coroner's Court and the High Court which is completely inconsistent with the
Army's own documented account and knowledge of the cause of the collapse of the
Te Rata Bridge. As legal counsel, I have never on any occasion felt able to put
either argument or evidence before a Court that contradicts my knowledge of any
admission or documented account that is to the contrary. I have always regarded
the practice as unethical for an officer of the Court.
I simply cannot allow myself to be silenced about this disgraceful
affair until justice and fairness prevail. I am not at all comfortable about the
position I find myself in, and I am well aware of the dangers involved. However,
I simply do not have the capacity to turn away from my now elderly and frail
clients cause, when they have suffered such grievous loss and harm from
contrived and blatant corruption by officials.
How you can assist
It is my experience that no one in Government wants to know about corrupt
behaviour of officials. Complaints are either deflected to other authorities -
who also prove to be unhelpful - or are simply ignored. Those in authority who
deliberately turn a blind eye to corrupt behaviour are themselves corrupt. And
corruption of judicial processes by false evidence and submissions ranks as one
of the very worst forms of corruption.
The Chief of the Defence Staff has released the Court of Inquiry Report on
the collapse of the Te Rata Bridge. However, as stated above, that report does
not contain Mr Butcher's conclusions on why the transoms failed. The Chief of
Defence Staff is desperate to keep the Butcher Report secret. The stated reason
is that it cannot be released because of Army discipline code requirements.
However that is absolute hog wash. The Army disciplinary code specifically
authorises a Commanding Officer to release such information. Mr Butcher was not
subject to military discipline, he was instead a retired civilian engineer
giving evidence about a civilian structure months after it failed. And I have no
doubt that Mr Butcher was paid for his professional services. Release of the
Butcher report would have no detrimental impact whatsoever on Army discipline.
Nor could it possibly impact upon the reason for the statutory regulation
conferment of privilege for military Courts of Inquiry.
The reason why the Chief of Defence Staff wants to keep the Butcher Report
confidential is because it clearly shows that the Army has misconducted itself
in it's own Court of Inquiry, and in the Coroner's Court, and in the High Court.
It is now known that the Army also concealed the existence of the Butcher Report
from then Defence Minister Max Bradford when he directed an inquiry into what
had actually caused the collapse of the Te Rata Bridge.
What can be done
If you share my revulsion at what has occurred, and what is occurring in the
Berryman case, then you can assist by disseminating the information contained in
this communication as widely as possible and ensuring that Parliamentarians and
other officials know of your revulsion, and your requirement, that they
immediately restore Keith and Margaret Berryman's reputations. Also insist that
they immediately establish a Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full
investigation, and report upon this disgraceful affair. There cannot be any
doubt that a comprehensive Commission of Inquiry is fully justified.
- Rob Moodie, Barrister and Solicitor of the New Zealand High Court
Scans of the Court of Inquiry Report
Document Map
