Easy Street
Well said.
The HSE charges were 'catch all', and specifics were not revealed until very late in the day; probably why M-B pleaded not guilty last year. It emerged in October that the two charges related to (a) quality of design, and (b) failure to send out a technical bulletin in 1990. The legal strategy dreamed up by their solicitors was 'don't upset MoD'. The quality of product charge, for obvious reasons, was the one to concentrate on.
The company statement (posted by airsound the other day) implies the quality of product charge was dropped. Those in court confirm this, although the way it was presented was apparently vague. If true, and even if guilty, the paperwork one would be a minor administrative error. (The allegation relates to 1990, but even the SI report admits the information was known by the correct people in 1991). The problem the company created for themselves was that media and public opinion was already tainted by the Coroner's inaccuracies and ill-informed comment - caused in part by MoD concealing relevant evidence, including the 2002 report. M-B and their solicitors have a copy obviously, but the strategy meant it wasn't used. I think this poor, because it would have cleared them of both charges.
(Remember, the SI report was not published until after the Inquest, and the MAA issued a written statement five days after evidence had finished that the family had only just been given a copy. Nobody could possibly prepare a case in time against MoD's version).
This report is actually a catch-up exercise by QQ, as MoD required independent safety assurance for Mk10A seat mods that had been developed and trialled in 1998, as a result of the 1996 Tornado Airworthiness Review Team report (TART). The mods were approved in 1999, but lacked an audit trail. One mod negated the risk of over-tightening the nut. This report closed the loop. The TART report is also what clears M-B on the paperwork, the Director of Flight Safety repeating his 1992 criticism that dissemination of safety information by the RAF was poor. (MoD denied the existence of TART for many years; and in this Hawk case MoD claimed no knowledge whatsoever of when the mods were developed or why. This lie was repeated in the House. You always follow the lie).
All this was too late for M-B, and it is plain the senior Director made an executive decision to plead, and get it over with. This was made very recently, because even a few days before the court appearance former MoD employees were standing by to give evidence, having been sought out by the solicitors (not come forward themselves).
Hope this helps. It will be interesting to hear what's said in court next month, if reported. Regardless, the truth will be published!