Some questions around yesterday's White Island verdict: 

Was justice done? Was justice seen to be done? 

Did a lot of people needlessly get dragged before the court for no good reason? 

Did those who had their charges dismissed get any compensation for lost time and energy on a case for them that went nowhere? 

Is it fair that the law allows a Government agency to simply machine-gun a series of charges about the place, in the hope a few will stick?

Do you machine-gun charge, hoping some will take the path of least resistance and simply plead guilty? 

Did some of those that pled guilty do so for essentially the wrong reasons and, if so, do they now regret that? 

Does the landing of a single guilty verdict from all those charges justify the approach from WorkSafe? 

Given what the judge said about WorkSafe and their reportage of operations on the island, are they potentially as culpable as anyone else? And if they are, where are the charges against them? 

Where is any accountability from them at all? 

Why do we have a system whereby you get charged and then have those charges dismissed and you can essentially do nothing about it? 

Where is WorkSafe and why don't they front to defend their actions? Given that, is there a gross unfairness in the balance of power in matters such as this? 

How many of the WorkSafe charges, or indeed the WorkSafe approach to all of this, was a butt covering exercise designed to make them look better than they clearly are?   

Accepting this was a tragedy and lives were changed forever, how much of their approach was about looking like they cared and were out to get some people, even if those people were not in any way culpable? 

As tragic as the circumstances turned out to be, does some level of responsibility lie with individuals who took part in a tourist exercise involving a live volcano and there fore a level of risk was entered into? 

Is the reality not that if you are dealing with nature and you can't control, or tame nature, it is at all times beyond your control and therefore risk is involved and people buy into that risk? 

The fact one charge, one contested charge of all the charges, actually stuck - what does that change? 

Was justice done? 

Was justice seen to be done? 

Or are the questions just asked an indication of a sloppy Government department who are as guilty, if not more so, than anyone else who appeared in that court?