Full statement from Chris Jordan

As a family we were both surprised and upset to see the report last week from Brad McLeod, in response to the verdict from the UK coroner.

If Brad McLeod really said that accepting the charges was his "single biggest regret" then words fail me. One would have thought, and hoped, that being responsible for the death of our daughter would have been a bigger regret for him?

His statement also contained a number of factual inaccuracies. For instance:

1. The inquest in the UK was based on the police statements from both participants and guides taken on the day Emily died. There were no inaccuracies in these - they were the same ones read out at the trial in August 2009, in Queenstown.

2. Contrary to his assertions, the guides were not well trained. Nick Kendrick, the operations manager, admitted in his statement that he had not done any White Water rescue training. Neither had Joshua Moore, the other guide.

3. The guides did not carry appropriate rescue equipment. Nick Kendrick stated that the rescue equipment consisted of: a mobile phone, a sugar solution for diabetics, and a Ventolin inhaler. This is ALL that they carried, and indeed this was still the case at the trial over 12 months after Emily died. There was no rope, knife or whistle carried: the commonly accepted minimum rescue equipment.

4. Mad Dog were using completely inappropriate and dangerous PFD's on the day Emily died. It should NOT be possible to pull a PFD off over anyone's head if it fits correctly. This is why I have campaigned continuously since then for crotch straps to be used, as these would stop this happening. The buoyancy was also, and continues to be, totally inadequate. If under Maritime New Zealand Law companies needs 100 newton PFD's (approx. 10.2 kilos of lift) for rafting how is it safe for only 50 Newtons to be used for River Boarding? The MNZ Expert Witness said that the PFD used was 'not fit for the purpose of River Boarding'. It was designed for playing canoe polo in a swimming pool! In addition Hutchwilco, a New Zealand PFD manufacturer said that: 'Mad Dog's PFD's did not comply with the basic buoyancy test'.

5. He is certainly correct in saying that they were doing an activity that posed a danger. If leaving from a dangerous spot with the river at a 3 years low exposing rocks that were clearly a fatality risk is not dangerous, what is? I would point out that the other companies river boarding on the day were leaving from a point below where Emily died, because of this.

6. An interesting point is that I do agree with him about the plea bargain. I wish he had not accepted this, as I was absolutely against it being offered. From soon after Emily died, when I began to realise how this had happened, I had been pushing for a manslaughter charge to be laid, not only against Brad McLeod, but also against the two other guides responsible on the day. But in the end the company, alone, got fined for what took place. This verdict was not worthy of New Zealand - it was, as I said at the time, an insult to Emily and our family.

In conclusion the results from the coroner's inquest held here in the UK, held because this was denied in New Zealand, only reflected the evidence from the trial held in New Zealand.

However I believe there is a bigger issue of concern here? If Brad McLeod cannot accept and acknowledge that what happened was down to the way he ran his company, then has anything changed today? I would suggest that if this is not the case, then he is 'in denial' and a liability, not only to the Adventure Tourism Industry in New Zealand, but also to the individuals who are putting their faith in his operation every day to take them down the river safely.

I have battled to get some positive change in this sector for three years now, and despite some difficult and emotional times have aimed to remain as constructive as possible. This is the only was logical improvements will be made. But statements of this type fill me with horror.

Can Brad McLeod really believe that these comments are acceptable?