Lawyers in the Sea-Land Construction trial will spend this morning arguing over the admissibility of various reports on the death of worker Teddy Sewell.

Today's debate follows on the heels of an afternoon of legal arguments to determine whether Health and Safety inspector Harry Powell could be deemed an expert witness in the trial of the construction company and its site foreman.

Sea-Land has been charged with failing to provide the necessary equipment to the crane operator to level the crane, not having the crane inspected in the 12 months prior to the accident and allowing the crane to be run by an operator not trained and competent.

Foreman Peter Vosvenieks is charged with failing to ensure that the crane's stabilisers were fully extended and failing to ensure that the crane had levelling equipment A third charge of failing to ensure that the crane was being operated with its lifting boom at optimum length and optimum angle was dismissed yesterday.

The charges come under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1982.

Mr. Sewell was crushed to death on November 1995 after the crane he was operating in fell over.

Last month, Coroner Edward King recorded a verdict of death by misadventure in connection with Mr. Sewell's death.

Yesterday Sea-land lawyer Jai Pachai claimed Mr. Powell lacked the necessary experience to be deemed an expert witness.

"He (Mr. Powell) accepts that he is not an expert on operating a crane,'' Mr.

Pachai said. "He is not a crane operator.'' But Magistrate Arthur Hodgson ruled that Mr. Powell's experience and training in Canada qualified him as an expert.

"He doesn't need to be an crane operator to know how to do it safely,'' Mr.

Hodgson said. "You don't have to be a driver to know that taking a corner at 60 kph is dangerous.'' The Health and Safety inspector testified that the report he wrote determined that Mr. Sewell lacked experience operating a crane and there was inadequate site supervision at the time of the accident.

He said he formed his opinion after reading reports -- including one by Vosvenieks recounting the mishap -- Police photographs, measurements taken from the site.

Mr. Powell claimed it was the site supervisor's duty to ensure the health and safety of his workers were not compromised.

"It is a good idea that he (supervisor) be there to make sure everything is done right,'' he told Mr. Hodgson.

But Mr. Powell said the supervisor was not breaking the law by not being present when a crane's stabiliser's were deployed.

And under cross examination by Vosvenieks' lawyer Mark Diel, Mr. Powell admitted the site measurements he took were collected almost a year after the accident.

He testified he did not know where exactly Vosvenieks was located on the site when the accident took place.

"I knew he was on the site, that's all,'' Mr. Powell said.

He went on to say: "The lift itself has nothing to do with the site supervisor unless he saw something he thought was unsafe.'' The trial continues today.