Thank you, and what you say is of course true.
But there have been exceptions. In the XV230 case, Des Browne had the integrity to, in face of MoD denials and lies his junior Ministers, order the Nimrod Review. The legal establishment did its best to protect MoD, but there was a result of sorts.
Likewise, Liam Fox had the integrity to keep the promise to set up a Review, and Lord Philip accepted ‘third party' evidence that, yet again, MoD lied.
The Coroner accepted ‘third party’ evidence in the XV179 case – proof that MoD had lied about when it knew of risk mitigation, which is the central point on XX177. Here, MoD has learned, and withheld the SI report until after the Inquest, so denying the court and family independent expert advice.
The families involved might consider these successes in isolation, but if the truth was heard in court, the likes of Mr Cunningham would surely be asking why the same old failings had not been corrected, even after these Reviews.
I believe that, when sentencing, a judge is required to consider aggravating factors, including:
In this case, all were committed by MoD, not Martin-Baker. And, importantly, repeat earlier failures. That’s not just my opinion. It is fact, set out by the above Reviews and/or the RAF Director of Flight Safety. Mrs Justice Carr may have been entitled to ignore third-party evidence. She was certainly misled by both defence and prosecution. But she did not mention consideration of these aggravating factors.
I still wonder what would have happened if Haddon-Cave had heard the case last year, as planned. He would have looked utterly stupid if he overlooked the lack of a Safety Case Report. And I’m pretty sure the MAA wouldn’t have been so keen on their man being HSE’s ‘star witness’.