The article asks whether disasters that destroy life but leave the material infrastructure relatively intact tend to prompt communal coping focussing on loss, while disasters that destroy significant material infrastructure tend to prompt coping through restoration / re-building. After comparing memorials to New Zealand’s Christchurch earthquake and Pike River mine disasters, we outline circumstances in which collective restorative endeavour may be grassroots, organised from above, or manipulated, along with limits to effective restoration. We conclude that bereavement literature may need to take restoration more seriously, while disaster literature may need to take loss more seriously.
This paper begins with a discussion of the history of negligent manslaughter in New Zealand and its development from the standard of ordinary negligence to the current test of a “major departure” from the expected standard of care, as set out under s 150A of the Crimes Act 1961. The paper then examines failings in s 150A’s current application, arguing that the “major departure” test has created injustices due to its strictly objective nature. Two examples of this are discussed in-depth, Bawa-Garba v R (UK) where a doctor was convicted of grossly negligent manslaughter for the death of her patient; and the decision not to prosecute the negligent engineers of the CTV building which collapsed in the Christchurch earthquake of 2011. The paper discusses three potential resolutions moving forward. It concludes that a more subjective interpretation of the wording of s 150A, which takes account of circumstances excusing or condemning a defendant’s conduct, would prevent future injustices and be a reasonably open interpretation on the wording of s 150A.
