A New Zealand dive operator is seeking compensation and accountability after a prosecution brought by Maritime New Zealand following a serious passenger injury was dismissed after proceedings stretching across almost six years.
Neil Bennett, director of New Zealand Diving and skipper of the commercial dive vessel Midnight Diver, was prosecuted following an incident at the Mangawhai Bar in December 2019.
A female passenger suffered serious spinal injuries after the vessel encountered a large wave while crossing the bar on its way to a diving trip.
The case eventually reached trial in late 2025. After a seven-day hearing, the charges against Bennett and New Zealand Diving Limited were dismissed after the court found Maritime NZ had failed to prove its case.
Bennett has since said the lengthy proceedings caused substantial financial, reputational and personal damage and that he wants compensation following the failed prosecution.
What Happened Aboard Midnight Diver?
The incident occurred in December 2019 as Midnight Diver, a seven-metre commercial dive vessel, crossed the Mangawhai Bar carrying seven paying passengers on a trip towards the Hen and Chickens Islands.
According to details subsequently considered by the court, the vessel encountered a large wave during the crossing. A female passenger was thrown from her position on a pontoon and suffered significant injuries, including a fractured vertebra and two prolapsed discs.
The vessel returned to shore and the injured passenger was taken to hospital.
Maritime NZ subsequently investigated the incident.
The regulator has confirmed directly to The Scuba News that Bennett faced one charge under section 64 of the Maritime Transport Act 1994, while New Zealand Diving Limited faced a charge under sections 36(2) and 48 of the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015.
Charges were filed in December 2020, just over 11 months after the incident.
Case Takes Almost Six Years To Reach Trial
What followed was an unusually long legal process.
The incident occurred shortly before Christmas 2019, but the case did not reach trial until October 2025.
In a statement provided directly to The Scuba News, Maritime NZ attributed much of that delay to disruption within the court system following the Covid-19 pandemic.
Deb Despard, Deputy Chief Executive, Regulatory Operations at Maritime NZ, said delays of this length were highly unusual.
Maritime NZ said it explored ways of getting the case heard sooner, including moving proceedings from Auckland District Court to North Shore District Court.
The regulator acknowledged that Bennett, the injured passenger and witnesses were all required to wait substantially longer than would normally be expected.
Court Finds Maritime NZ Failed To Prove Its Case
Despite the length of the proceedings, the prosecution ultimately failed.
Following a seven-day trial, Judge Evangelos Thomas found Maritime NZ had not established the charges.
According to reporting by the New Zealand Herald, the court considered several aspects of New Zealand Diving’s safety arrangements.
The company’s operating plans and procedures had previously been audited without adverse comment, while Midnight Diver was in survey to carry dive passengers in inshore waters using pontoon seating.
The court also found insufficient evidence that Bennett had failed to give passengers an appropriate safety briefing.
Passengers recalled being warned about the approaching bar crossing, being told to prepare for a bumpy ride and being instructed to hold tightly to the support rope.
Judge Thomas concluded that Maritime NZ had failed to prove its case.
Questions Over Evidence
The proceedings also raised questions over the reliability of evidence after correspondence involving a prosecution witness emerged during discovery.
According to the New Zealand Herald, one witness told investigators that they could no longer remember the day of the incident and added that they would “make stuff up if needed.”
Bennett’s lawyer, Brett Harris, argued that the comment illustrated the problems created by the prolonged delay between the incident and trial, including deteriorating witness recollection.
An earlier attempt to have proceedings stayed because of the delay was unsuccessful, and the case proceeded to trial.
Bennett Says Business Paid The Price
Bennett has described the experience as devastating for both his family and New Zealand Diving.
The veteran diving professional has argued that the uncertainty surrounding the prosecution prevented the business from moving forward normally while he faced potentially serious consequences if convicted.
During the same period, the company also had to contend with Covid-related disruption, severe weather and a ram-raid burglary.
Bennett has said the damage caused by the prosecution is difficult to quantify, particularly its impact on the company’s reputation and his ability to invest in the business.
Now in his mid-60s, Bennett has indicated that he is considering selling the business but believes the years of uncertainty have significantly affected its value.
He is now seeking compensation and greater accountability following the dismissal.
Maritime NZ Stands By Decision To Prosecute
Despite the outcome, Maritime NZ has told The Scuba News that it continues to believe bringing the prosecution was appropriate.
Despard said the regulator’s original decision reflected the seriousness of the passenger’s injuries, the public interest and its assessment of evidential sufficiency.
“This incident caused serious harm to the victim, who suffered significant spinal injuries and had still not recovered by the time the trial was scheduled late last year,” Despard told The Scuba News.
Maritime NZ said that throughout prosecutions it considers whether the thresholds for public interest and evidential sufficiency continue to be met.
The regulator said it respects the court’s decision to dismiss the case but remains satisfied that filing charges following the incident was the correct course of action.
What Happens Next?
The next question is whether Bennett can recover any of the losses associated with defending the case.
Maritime NZ told The Scuba News that it had not received an application for costs and would not speculate on how it might respond to an application that had not yet been made.
“The award of costs is ultimately a matter for the Court,” the regulator said.
Maritime NZ also confirmed that it has considered the court’s decision but declined to discuss its internal processes or legal advice.
That leaves an unusual situation.
A passenger suffered serious and lasting injuries, giving Maritime NZ clear reason to investigate what happened. The regulator subsequently concluded that prosecution was justified and continues to stand by that decision.
But almost six years after the incident, the court found that the prosecution had not proved its case.
For Bennett and New Zealand Diving, the legal case may be over. The dispute over the consequences of those six years may only now be beginning.
For the wider New Zealand diving industry, the case also raises an important question about the practical consequences for small operators when regulatory proceedings extend across several years, even when the prosecution ultimately fails.
The Scuba News will continue to follow any application for costs or compensation and any further developments arising from the case.
.jpg){kind=link}