I was thinking of the previous decision by the CPS not to prosecute MoD.
This decision only addressed the seat servicing. The CPS, as ever, evaded its responsibility to address corporate level failings. (Followers of the Nimrod XV230 case may recall it and Thames Valley Police lied to families, saying no-one would come forward with evidence, omitting to say they were sitting on witness statements).
JTO - good post. If I might just add a reminder that it is MoD's responsibility to ensure a valid Safety Case. It is inconceivable that Martin Baker don't hold the necessary evidence, but likely that they were simply not under contract to produce the mandated Safety Case Reports - again, similar to Nimrod XV230. More than likely, given public admissions by the former IPTL.