No prosecution over CTV building collapse

The police have decided not to prosecute anyone over the CTV building collapse in the Christchurch earthquake. Not surprisingly this has dismayed many people.

RNZ: CTV decision ‘not trial by expert’

A criminal prosecution against the designers of the CTV building was abandoned even though engineers said it was clear substandard design led to the collapse.

On Thursday, police announced they did not have sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.

“If I’d taken my heart’s advice, we would have prosecuted. I can’t take my heart’s advice, I have to use my head,” Detective Superintendent Peter Read said.

Documents released by the police show the Crown Solicitor had concluded there was enough evidence to lay charges of negligent manslaughter against designers Alan Reay and David Harding, after a three-year $1.2 million police investigation.

The centrepiece of that investigation was a report by the leading engineering firm BECA that lays out a dozen major deficiencies in the structural design.

“It is our opinion that, had the whole building complied with codes and practices of the day, the building, though damaged, would have had sufficient resilience not to collapse suddenly and in a pancaking fashion,” BECA said.

“Dr Reay’s omission to discharge his obligations in regard to the allocation of appropriate resources to the design were the reason why the design errors were not identified and corrected, and was therefore a substantial and operating cause of the deaths.”

BECA and the two peer reviewers agreed that Dr Reay and Mr Harding did not fulfil their duty to design up to code – a major departure from expected standards, which was a substantial cause of the collapse.

This sounds fairly damning. I wonder how many other buildings around the country are substandard?

But Deputy Solicitor General Brendan Horsley pulled back, saying “this is not trial by expert” and he considered the prospects of a successful prosecution were low, as did the Crown Solicitor.

“A key difficulty for the prosecution would be in proving the CTV building would not have collapsed in the absence of the identified design errors,” he said.

“The expert peer reviewers were cautious about drawing this conclusion.”

An American peer reviewer, who is not named, said it was possible the collapse could have occurred in the absence of design errors due to higher than expected ground motions in combination with the building’s lack of resilience.

The documents explained that the building code at the time did not demand adequately strong columns for resilience in high-risk zones.

However, a New Zealand peer reviewer pointed out other buildings of a similar age and type withstood the quake and that the designers did not take into account the building having to move sideways in a quake.

I don’t think anyone expected such a dangerous earthquake in Christchurch. That other buildings withstood the quake could be due to range of factors. The specific site the CTV building was on may have been particularly vulnerable.

The building’s designer Dr Reay said he was “deeply anguished.”

In a statement, he said: “I have tried to understand why the building characteristics changed after the September 2010 earthquake and then ultimately collapsed.

“It is my strongest hope that from this tragedy every possible lesson is learned.”

I’m sure he is anguished.

Certainly lessons will have been learned, it’s important that they are.

Justice Minister Andrew Little said he wanted to consider introducing a corporate manslaughter charge in the future.

“Everybody involved in this has walked away scot-free. And that’s not right,” he said.

He’s not right – I’m fairly sure that anyone who thinks they could have some degree of responsibility for this tragedy carry a heavy burden.

Would a prosecution be in the public interest? Would it achieve anything useful?

Would Little be happy for politicians to be prosecuted if laws were found to be at fault in a tragedy?

If there was deliberate cutting of safety corners in building design and construction then certainly charges should be a strong possibility. But for human error?

Should designers and builders of buildings found to be substandard and have survived so far because they haven’t been subject to devastating earthquakes be prosecuted?

Should council planners and geologists who didn’t foresee the risks of the Christchurch land that was built on be culpable?

Or should it be ensured that lessons are properly learned and acted on in the future, and leave it at that?


Previous Post
Leave a comment


  1. Strong For Life

     /  1st December 2017

    I believe this is the wrong decision. Prosecutions should occur, not only of the designers and engineers responsible but also the Christchurch City Council building inspectors who approved the work.

  2. Gezza

     /  1st December 2017

    I think it is wrong for the deputy solicitor general to pre-empt & prejudge the outcome of this trial & that the prosecution should have been taken. The questions raised by PG imo are most properly answered in Court. I also agree with Strong For Life. There are others who should also be in the dock. In this country people & civil agencies collectively responsible for disasters that cost lives too easily get to walk away from being properly held to account for their collective culpability for involuntary manslaughter.

  3. Kabull

     /  1st December 2017

    We need to stand back and ask whether the demand ‘for accountability’ is actually reasonable, or whether it is a case of ‘somebody did wrong – lets get the ba****ards’. The age of the CTV building was such that the designers, engineers, builders, etc were identifiable and still alive. What would the reaction have been if it were 10 years older? What if it had been 50 years older? What if those responsible for it were no longer alive? Nothing would have changed as far as the relatives of the victims were concerned EXCEPT that there would be no scope to jump on the blame train. Don’t get me wrong – I have total sympathy for those directly affected. But I also think the designers etc will pay a big price for the rest of their lives.
    Introducing a corporate manslaughter offence because nobody has been charged might be seen as a petty, populist, and vindictive attitude.

  4. Alan Wilkinson

     /  1st December 2017

    Woild a jury judge the case on cool evidence or hot emotion? I’m not certain this is a suitable case for trial. Time and complexity are big factors.

    • Gezza

       /  1st December 2017

      I guess you’ve only got to look at the Bain trial to know the answer to that. Although in that case a jury trial was appropriate, even if I think the outcome & what we have heard since the verdict were not, there are some cases involving complexities beyond the average citizen that demand a judges-alone trial, as in some other jurisdictions. I see this as one.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  1st December 2017

        But the accused would have a right to a jury trial in this case. I think the technical/systems and standards failures have already been investigated and addressed. I’m not convinced an attempt to further pillory individuals adds anything to either prevention or restitution. Their CVs and consciences already have a big black cloud and there seems no evidence of intent, awareness or criminality.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  1st December 2017

        I’d also add that the argument that other buildings survived has to be tested against the maps that showed most buildings impacted severely followed the lines of old water courses which obviously had affected the ground on which they stood.

        • Gezza

           /  1st December 2017

          I guess I might find your argument easier to accept if people weren’t fined for unkowingly or unintentionally exceeding the speed limit, which law is ostensibly intended to prevent harm to people. (Notwithstanding the obvious fact they’re cynically rigidly enforced because they’re a gold mine for any government.)

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  1st December 2017

            That’s ridiculous, Sir Gerald. People who unknowingly or unintentionally exceed the speed limit should be fined for careless driving. It is the ones who knowingly and deliberately exceed the speed limit because in the circumstances it is perfectly safe to do so who should not be fined.

            • Gezza

               /  1st December 2017

              Where will it end, I ask, Sir Alan. No doubt with cyclists being fineable for carless driving.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: