'Aeroplane Hits Tank' and other Courts Martial cases

[Dave Homewood]

I have been looking into John Patrick McVeagh, an airman originally from Cambridge who became a lawyer in Auckland before WWII, and when the war came he joined the RNZAF, where it seems he continued to practice law. I have found several reports on Court Martial cases where he was involved with the legal proceedings. Some interesting incidents!

This one from the PRESS newspaper (Christchurch) dated 16 February 1943:

AEROPLANE HITS TANK

PILOT APPEARS BEFORE COURT-MARTIAL

ACQUITTAL ON ONE CHARGE

“I cursed the aircraft,” declared Trooper V. H. Sherborne, when he related before a court-martial yesterday how, during manoeuvres near the Waimakariri river on January 5, a Royal New Zealand Air Force aeroplane had come straight at the tank which he was driving, touched the turret of the latter, and left behind a small piece of the fuselage.

Sherborne was giving evidence at the court-martial of Flying Officer Francis Kenneth Woodward, R.N.Z.A.F., who was in charge of the aeroplane at the time of the incident. Woodward was charged with:
(1) An act in flying at West Melton likely to cause bodily injury to persons in that, being captain of an aircraft, he flew it so as, to collide with a General Stuart tank, thereby causing danger of bodily injury to his pupil, L.A.C. Norman Rupert Overend, also to his passengers, L.A.C. Charles Blackwood Cornish and W.A.L Annie May Denley;

(2) negligently damaging,the aircraft to the extent of £22;

(3) an act to the prejudice of good order and Air Force discipline, in that he flew the aircraft at a height below 250 feet, contrary to Air Staff training instructions, which directed that instruction in low flying was to take place at a height of 250 feet.

The court-martial was constituted as follows:—President, Wing Commander H. L. Tancred, A.F.C.; members, Squadron Leader S. L. Gilkison, Squadron Leader V. G. H. Gee, Flight Lieutenant D. E. Hopwood, and Flight Lieutenant J. M. S. Ross; prosecutor, Pilot Officer J. E. Farrell; defending officer. Flying Officer R. S. C. Agar; judge-advocate. Pilot Officer J. P. McVeagh.

The accused pleaded not guilty to all charges. He also pleaded condonation in each case, but this was overruled by the court.

He was found not guilty on the last charge of acting to the prejudice of good order and discipline. The decisions on the other two charges will go forward to the confirming authorities for consideration.

Trooper T. M. Green, who was with tanks on manoeuvres near the river, told how he had seen the aircraft coming directly towards him. “I ducked down,” he said, “below the level of the turret. A small piece of the aircraft fell down beside me.” He added that there were other machines flying just as low that day.

The driver of the tank which Woodward’s machine touched was Trooper Sherborne.. He said that just before he saw the aircraft, flying low and on an even keel, coming towards him, he had received orders to stop his tank. “I stood up in the turret," he explained. “I expected the pilot to have plenty of clearance over the top. I ducked instinctively just before he came towards the tank. I then heard a dull thud as if something had hit the top of the turret.”

The witness added that the padding on the tank was torn, and that a fragment had dropped from the aeroplane.

L.A.C. Cornish, one of the passengers. said that L.A.C. Overend was the pupil but Woodward was piloting the aircraft during the approaches. Questioned by the president, the witness said they had flown over the tanks at from 20 to 30 feet Overend declared that Woodward had come down as low as from 15 to 20 feet while demonstrating operational low flying.

Condonation Plea
In support of the condonation plea, the defending officer said that Woodward had been allowed to continue his work as instructor from the date of the mishap until the present. That, he submitted, showed that the authorities had every confidence in his ability. A letter had also been received from an authority high in the Air Force, he added, commending Woodward for his action in landing an aircraft which had suffered a defect in the air.

Woodward, when giving evidence on the condonation issue, said that after the incident he had been called before the Chief Flying Officer at his station, who gave him “a bit of a chat by way of a reprimand,” and ordered him two days extra orderly officer’s duty. The Court ruled against the defence on all charges.

Flight Lieutenant Guy Rogers said that Woodward had reported the damage to him on his return. He said the accused, was somewhat vague as to what had happened. Witness said he had never told Woodward that operational low flying was to be demonstrated at below 250 feet. Witness described Woodward “as a sound instructor and a sound pilot.”

W.A.L. Denley, who was a passenger in the aircraft, said that Woodward had piloted it over the low-flying area, but she did not feel a bump as if it had hit an object.

Accused's Evidence
Woodward, in evidence, said that he recalled flying over some tanks, but denied that he had dived towards them. He had been an instructor since 1942, and had acted, he believed, in accordance with previous instructions. He said he had no intention of making a demonstration at from 10 to 15 feet in order merely to “work off a little steam.” He had never been told that he was not to demonstrate operational low flying below 250 feet. Woodward said that when he was demonstrating low flying he usually did so at from 20 to 30 feet, but he did not let his pupils do that, as a rule, because of their inexperience. In reply to his own counsel, Woodward said that he had never seen any instructions regarding low flying. Addressing the Court on behalf of Woodward, Flying Officer Agar denied that there had been any negligence. If found guilty of negligence in charge of aircraft, he said, Woodward would in future find it difficult to obtain the confidence of his pupils. The Air Force could ill afford to lose such a man, upon whose training several thousand pounds had been spent. He asked that the accused be acquitted on all charges.

[Dave Homewood]

Another low flying case from the NEW ZEALAND HERALD, dated 12 FEBRUARY 1944:

AIRMAN CHARGED

LOW FLYING ALLEGED

NEW YEAR'S DAY INCIDENT

(0.C.) PAPAKURA, Friday
Before a district court-martial held to-day at a North Island Royal New Zealand Air Force station, Sergeant Warren John King Hart, R.N.Z.A.F., was charged with being a pilot of one of His Majesty's aircraft, flying at a height less than such height as is proscribed by regulation, in that he, in the vicinity of Waiheke Island on January 1, 1944, when piloting a Warhawk aircraft, improperly and without authorisation flew the same aircraft at an altitude of less than 2000 ft., contrary to King's Regulations and Air Council Instruction.

The president of the Court was Wing Commander H. B. Burrell, O.B.E., the judge-advocate Pilot-Officer J. P. McVeagh, the prosecutor Pilot-Officer H. J. Butler. Members of the Court were Flight-lieutenants T. D. Webster and D. Hunter. Mr. S. D. Rice appeared for accused, and entered a plea of not guilty.

A Serious Charge
The prosecutor in opening the case said the offence of low flying, if established, was a particularly serious one. Every person was liable to imprisonment who was found guilty of such an offence, except when taking-off, alighting, or flying in bad weather or in specially selected areas and under special authorisation. In the present case it was the duty of accused and other pilots to fly at not less than 2000 ft.

On New Year's Day a considerable amount of flying was done from this station. Shortly after 10 a.m., he said, two planes left, one piloted by accused and the other by Sergeant W. G. Russell, who lost his life when his plane crashed into the sea in the vicinity of Waiheke Island. They were instructed to do two hours' flying, not in formation, but just to go their own way.

The flying officer at Maraetai on the day under review would say he noticed two planes flying in a southerly direction very low, not more than 50ft. up, and it was definitely established that the second plane flew so low that it hit the water, the pilot attempting to bail out. The machine, however, dived into the sea, and the pilot, Sergeant Russell, was drowned. The other aircraft flew just over the masts of boats in the bay near Maraetai, then flew off.

It had been established, said the prosecutor, that from three other stations in the North Island no types of this machine had been flown that day. Fourteen planes of this type were in the air from this station and all had been accounted for but the two in question.

Use of Radio Location
Counsel mentioned that, as far as he was aware, this was the first occasion on which radio location had been used in New Zealand in assisting in the administration of justice. Low flying,, he said, was regarded as a very serious offence and young pilots must be restrained from this practice. In the present case, as the result of this escapade, the country suffered the loss of a very valuable aircraft, and what was infinitely more 'valuable, the loss of a young and capable pilot. The prosecutor added that he was not suggesting Hart was responsible for the death of Russell, but he desired to bring home to these young pilots the inherent danger of low flying.

Squadron-Leader Henry R. Wigley said he had examined Hart's plane when it arrived back at the station and found blood and feathers on it.

Pilot-Officer Scott said that he was proceeding to Ponui Island in his launch and observed two planes. The second touched the water, climbed again erratically to 100 ft., then went over on its back and dived into the sea. The first machine appeared to climb, go out of sight, then turned and flew over Maraetai beach very low at about 100 ft. It then disappeared around the southernmost point.

The President: What was the first machine's minimum height over Maraetai beach?
Witness: About 100 ft.

Entries in Log Book
Warrant-Officer M. C. Conway, in charge of the control tower on January 1 at the accused's station, who had seen service overseas, stated that he recorded the times of departure and arrival of planes by his watch and if he found it wrong he corrected it by time signals.

Counsel for accused, after perusing witness' log book, asked him if he could account for an alteration from 1008 hours to 1018 hours, the figure 1 having been inserted over the 0. The president interposed and stated that there appeared to be other alterations in the book. In reply to counsel, witness said that all the alterations in the log book looked like his.

The Court then devoted considerable time to the technical side of radio location presented by an expert. The Court adjourned at 5 p.m. until Monday morning, when the remaining witness will be heard.

[Dave Homewood]

This follows on in the NEW ZEALAND HERALD, 15 FEBRUARY 1944:

PILOT ACQUITTED

LOW FLYING CHARGE

WAIHEKE ISLAND AREA

Concluding evidence in a charge against Sergeant Warren John King Hart, R.N.Z.A.F., of flying at less than the prescribed height of 2000 ft. in the vicinity of Waiheke Island on January 1, 1944, was heard by a district-court-martial at a Royal New Zealand Air Force station yesterday. The president of the court was "Wing-Commander H. B, Burrell, O.B.E., the judge-advocate Pilot-Officer J. P. McVeagh, and the prosecutor Pilot-Officer H. J. Butler. The other, members of the court were Flight-Lieutenants T. D. Webster and D. Hunter. Mr. S. D. Rice appeared for the accused, who entered a plea of not guilty.

When the case opened on Friday the prosecutor said that accused was the pilot of one of two aircraft flying in the vicinity of Waiheke Island. The other machine was piloted by Sergeant W. G. Russell, who was drowned when his aircraft crashed into the sea. The flying-officer at Maraetai on the day in question said he noticed two aircraft flying very low in a southerly direction. The second machine flew so low that, it hit the water. The other machine flew just over the masts of boats near Maraetai before flying away. The prosecutor said it was not suggested that accused was responsible for the death of Russell, but it was desired to bring home to young pilots the danger of low flying.

Crash 200 Yards from Dinghy
Technical evidence on the use of radio-location in detecting aircraft was given by Flying-Officer C. P. Hoadley when the hearing was resumed yesterday.

Leslie Garfield Curtis, motor engineer, of Mount Eden, said he was fishing between Rocky Bay and Maraetai on the morning of January 1, 1944, and saw two fighter aircraft flying close together toward Waiheke at between 500 ft, and 1000 ft. Shortly afterward he heard a motor and saw a large splash in the water. He then saw two machines, one very low, flying toward his dinghy. One gained altitude, but the other finally crashed. The first machine flew in a circle for a time, but witness did not see it after that, as his party was getting the pilot of the crashed machine out of the water and working on him.

If other witnesses said the other machine flew very low over Maraetai Beach, continued witness, he would not be in a position to contradict them. The aircraft that crashed landed about 200 yards from witness' dinghy. The leading machine did not turn east toward Waiheke. The other machine did not come over the scene of the crash afterward. Witness had no special training in judging heights.

Statement Made by Accused
Henry James Lodge, of Drury, retired farmer, said the aircraft that crashed was flying higher than the other when he saw them. Just before the machine crashed something fell from that aircraft. His party hauled the pilot from the water.

Pilot-Officer Allan Robert Carr, engineer officer, said the clock on the crashed aircraft had stopped at 10.30 a. m.

Flight-Lieutenant George Munro Bertram produced a statement made by accused, in which he said the last he saw of Russell was when Russell was very near the water off the north-west corner of Waiheke. He circled for some time calling Russell on the radio and then turned toward Manukau Heads. Later he flew back to his station, striking some birds on the way.

Case For Defence
At the close of the evidence for the prosecution counsel submitted that there was no case against accused, the evidence being contradictory and inconclusive. The movements of a third pilot that day were not accounted for. The prosecuting officer said there was a prima facie case. The flying described by accused would occupy about 25 minutes, and since he and Sergeant Russell left together at 10.8 a.m. that brought them close to the time of the crash as shown by clock in Russell's aircraft. Other times given by accused did not tally with figures certainly established.

Counsel said the defence to the charge was that accused was not in the area when the accident happened. Evidence would be that a third pilot was low flying in the area when Russell's aircraft crashed.

Accused gave evidence on the flying he had done on the day in question, stating that after Russell told him he was going down he called Russell at least six times on the radio. He did not go near Maraetai. He was told by radio that Russell had crashed into the sea near Waiheke Island.

References to Third Pilot
Accused said that when he told other pilots about being charged, one man, the third pilot previously mentioned, said he had "beaten up" the place on the day of the crash. Accused suggested that Russell might have been following that other pilot. Russell was within 1000ft. of the water when accused last saw him. He had not disclosed what the third pilot said at the court of inquiry because he thought the other man would speak up. The evidence seemed to show that he had not done so, although he knew at the time accused had been charged with low flying. Accused had not spoken because he did not want "to put him away." In his opinion the crash was probably due to engine failure.

For the defence, three flight-sergeants recalled a discussion on low flying opposite Waiheke during which the third pilot concerned referred in surprise to accused's being charged with low flying when he himself had done so. The evidence showed only that two aircraft were in the area at the time and the second had not been definitely identified as the accused's, counsel said.

The prosecutor asked whether accused's evidence could be accepted in face of what other witnesses had said. If accused were innocent there was no necessity for him to tell untruths. Summing up, the judge advocate said identification of the aircraft was the crux of the whole matter. After a retirement of 15 minutes the Court returned a verdict of not guilty.

[Dave Homewood]

Another case from the EVENING POST, 15 FEBRUARY 1945:

COURT-MARTIAL

TWO FLYING OFFICERS

UNAUTHORISED LANDINGS

Two young R.N.Z.A.F. officers, one of whom had served in Singapore, Java, and in the Pacific, appeared before s General-Court-Martial in Wellington today, charged with acts prejudicial to good order and Air Force discipline, following an incident that took place near Winton on December 7.

The accused were Flight Lieutenant Francis Sorley Johnstone and Pilot Officer Sydney Patterson both on the A.T.C. touring flight, was charged against them that they had made an unauthorised landing in a paddock other than an authorised landing field. There was an additional charge against Patterson of having negligently damaged an aircraft on the same day when he struck the ground in taking off after making an unauthorised landing. The result of this was that the machine was damaged to the extent of £123 15s.

Both officers pleaded guilty.

The president of the Court was Group Captain E. M. Lewis, of the Air Department, Wellington, the other members being Wing Commanders H B. Burrell and J. A. Oldfield, and Flight Lieutenants R. F. Watson and A. O. Betteridge. The Judge Advocate was Flying Officer J. P. McVeagh and the accused were defended by Flight Lieutenant W. C. Kohn.

Johnstone, it was stated in the summary of evidence, declared that a friend of his, a former member of the R.N.Z.A.F. named Broad, lived on a farm near Winton. In the course of a normal flight on December 7 he had observed the property of this man, and, as a good landing offered in the paddock, he decided "on the spur of the moment" to land. Johnstone added that he had given four years' service in the war and that this had been his first offence.

According to the summary in regard to Patterson, he had seen Johnstone's machine on the ground and, believing that he was in trouble he, too, had landed. On landing Johnstone told him that he should not have done so, and instructed him to depart. The paddock, said Patterson, was not the field which they had agreed to use.

In a statement submitted to the Court by Cadet John Murray, who had landed with Johnstone, he said that Broad had invited them both in for a cup of tea, so they stayed for about half an hour and then flew back to Winton.

NOT PREMEDITATED.
There might be a tendency to view Johnstone's offence out of its perspective, the Court was warned by Flying Officer Kohn, who declared that it had not been premeditated. It was not until Broad had signalled, said counsel, that Johnstone had decided to land. There was no suggestion of any negligence; in fact, particular care had been taken.

"This is rather a pitiful situation for Johnstone to find himself in before a general court-martial," he continued, "for what I submit is a comparatively trivial offence." It would have been better, he added, if Johnstone had been dealt with summarily, as had once been decided upon. He pointed out that the accused was still fulfilling his normal duties. Johnstone had already been punished, to "no small extent." The offence was in no sense comparable, in counsel's opinion, with that of low flying, one that had given the authorities some concern in the past.

After hearing counsel on behalf of Johnstone, the court adjourned to consider the sentence. The charges against Patterson were subsequently proceeded with. On behalf of the accused, it was submitted by Flying Officer Kohn that he had done only what any other officer would have done under the circumstances. His landing had been made under an impulse, which counsel characterised as "generous and chivalrous'" There had been no deliberate disregard for the regulation, which stated that he had no right to land, even if he saw another aircraft in trouble. Patterson, he pointed out, was an officer of considerable experience, and there was no suggestion of negligence at that stage.

It was also extremely doubtful, he declared, if any negligence could be attributed to him in relation to the second charge, which had been caused by the obstruction of a haystack. Possibly he had made an error of judgment when attempting to leave the paddock, but he had certainly not been negligent.

Counsel asked that the two charges should be considered together when the court pronounced its punishment. Though Patterson had not had overseas service, it was stated that he had had more than 1000 flying hours' experience.

The decision of the court in regard to both the cases will be promulgated later in orders.

[Dave Homewood]

From the EVENING POST, 22 FEBRUARY 1945

REPRIMANDED

AND LOSS OF SENIORITY

The decision of the general court-martial that sat in Wellington last week to hear charges against two young officers of the R.N.Z.A.F. was announced today. In the case of Flight Lieutenant Francis Sorley Johnstone, he was severely reprimanded, and directed to take rank and precedence as if his appointment as flight lieutenant bore the date of February 15, 1945. In effect, the sentence meant the loss of 10½ months' seniority.

Flying Officer Sydney Patterson, the other accused, was likewise severely reprimanded. He was ordered to take rank and precedence as from the same date, which meant the loss of four and a half months' seniority. In addition, Patterson was placed under stoppage of pay until he had made good the sum of £10 in respect to damage to the aircraft in which he was flying at the time of the mishap which occasioned the charges against him.

Both officers had been charged with acts prejudicial to good order and Air Force discipline following an incident that took place near Winton on December 7. Johnstone admitted landing without authority at the farm of a friend in that district. Patterson, who had observed the machine on the ground, had also landed under the impression that Johnstone was in trouble. When attempting to take off Patterson's aircraft had been damaged to the extent of £123 15s.

The president of the Court was Group Captain E. M. Lewis, of the Air Department, Wellington, the other members being Wing Commanders H. B. Burrell and J. A. Oldfield, and Flight Lieutenants R. F. Watson and A. O. Betteridge. The Judge Advocate was Flying Officer J. P. McVeagh, and the accused were defended by Flight Lieutenant W. C. Kohn.

[Dave Homewood]

This one comes from the PRESS, 28 MARCH 1945

CHARGE OF LOW FLYING

PILOT OFFICER ADMITS OFFENCE

EVIDENCE AT WIGRAM COURT-MARTIAL

Charges of low flying and disobedience of local flying orders were admitted by Pilot Officer Selwyn John Bennett when he appeared before a general court-martial at Wigram yesterday. The charges involved flying over Geraldine at a height of less than 2000 feet on February 26, and flying outside the local flying area. In mitigation of Bennett’s offence it was stated that his home was in the midst of the Geraldine flooded area. This had worried him considerably, and he had decided to investigate conditions on one of his training flights.

The president of the court-martial was Group Captain E. M. Lewis, O.B.E., and the members were Wing Commander H. B. Burrell, O.B.E., Wing Commander E. A. Moen, A.F.C.. Squadron Leader E. F. Harvie, A.F.C., and Flight Lieutenant B. L. Haybittle. The prosecuting officer was Flight Lieutenant V. G. Spiller, and the defending officer was Flight Lieutenant A. M. Haldane. Flying Officer J. P. McVeagh was judge-advocate.

Evidence of Height
In the summary evidence read to the court, Police Constable John Robertson. of Geraldine, said he saw an aircraft which swooped down to within 60 feet of the ground when passing over a flagpole on top of a building.

Maurice Paul Watson, a building contractor, said he was convinced that at no time was the aircraft flying as low as 60 feet. He considered the height was at least 240 feet.

The evidence of Linton Mann, tomato grower, was that the aircraft made four level runs at a height of 400 feet to 500 feet above the township. The height did not strike him as unusually low. as on many occasions he had seen aircraft flying at least as low over Geraldine.

Flying Officer Albert John Lawrence Hessey said Bennett had no authority to proceed outside the local flying area. On the second morning after the incident Bennett reported that he had been outside the local area to see if the recent flood waters had reached his home, and the police had taken his number and were reporting him.

The defending officer produced testimonials as to Bennett’s character from the Mayor of Geraldine (Mr D. C. McKechnie), the Rev. A. H. Norris, and Father M. J. Fogarty. He also called Flying Officer Hessey. who said that Bennett was one of the keenest pupils he had ever had, and was not the type to indulge in low flying deliberately.

Plea for Leniency
Flight Lieutenant Haldane said that but for these two offences Bennett held an unblemished and even brilliant record of service in the Air Force. Low flying, except where duly authorised, was one of the most serious offences a pilot could commit, but Bennett’s case was not the usual case of low flying, where a pilot in his exuberance or showing off decided to “beat up” a place. His home was in the midst of the flooded area, and the danger he knew existed had worried him considerably. He had no thought of flying low. but wanted to see what the danger was, so that if necessary he could tell his parents. Flight Lieutenant Haldane added that Bennett was keen to proceed on operations and make a success of his flying training. The court was asked to take a lenient view of his first and only offence. The sentence of the court will be referred to the convening officer (Air Commodore R. B. Bannerman) for confirmation, and will be promulgated later.