Content deleted Content added
m →See also: : Piped link with italics |
removed tag; this sentence adequately summarizes the body of the article on this issue, which has at least three references to the point |
||
Line 31:
''Melbourne'' struck ''Voyager'' at 20:56, with the carrier's bow striking just behind the bridge and cutting the destroyer in two. Of the 314 aboard ''Voyager'', 82 were killed, most of whom died immediately or were trapped in the heavy bow section, which sank after 10 minutes. The rest of the ship sank after midnight. ''Melbourne'', although damaged, suffered no fatalities, and was able to sail to Sydney the next morning with most of the ''Voyager'' survivors aboard – the rest had been taken to the naval base {{HMAS|Creswell}}.
The RAN proposed a [[board of inquiry]] to investigate the collision, but a series of incidents during the 1950s and 1960s had led to a public mistrust of Navy-run investigations, and as proposals for an inquiry supervised by a federal judge were not acted upon, a full [[royal commission]] became the only avenue for an externally supervised inquiry. The four-month Royal Commission, headed by Sir [[John Spicer (Australian politician)|John Spicer]],<ref group=note>Sir [[John Spicer (Australian politician)|John Spicer]] was the Chief Judge of the [[Commonwealth Industrial Court]].</ref> concluded that ''Voyager'' was primarily at fault for failing to maintain effective situational awareness, but also criticised ''Melbourne''{{'s}} captain, John Robertson, and his officers for not alerting the destroyer to the danger they were in. Robertson was posted to a shore base and banned from serving again at sea; he resigned soon after. Opinions were that the Royal Commission had been poorly handled
Increasing pressure over the results of the first Royal Commission, along with allegations by former ''Voyager'' executive officer Peter Cabban that Captain Duncan Stevens was unfit for command, prompted a second Royal Commission in 1967: the only time in Australian history that two Royal Commissions have been held to investigate the same incident. Although Cabban's claims revolved primarily around Stevens' drinking to excess, the second Royal Commission found that Stevens was unfit to command for medical reasons. Consequently, the findings of the first Royal Commission were based on incorrect assumptions, and Robertson and his officers were not to blame for the collision.
| |||