Originally Posted by
WB627
Is there any possibility that a Barrister who understands the issues ?
This, I think, is a key issue. Very few do, which has been all too evident at many a military Inquest, with them unable to pick up when MoD has lied under questioning. Hercules XV179 is the obvious example in England.
One of the deceased was Australian, where government policy is to fund legal representation for the bereaved. The family QC was superb. He had his experts on speed dial for advice during recesses. Even so, when the porkies came thick and fast it was difficult. It was only after the event that the evidence of one senior officer could be dissected, and proven entirely wrong. By then it's too late. And, of course, MoD arranged for one potential witness, a retired C-130 pilot, to be detained on the steps of the courthouse by security forces. Not dissimilar from the Cunningham case, when Mr C was physically dragged away when he tried to speak to those who were there to help. It's not just lack of representation that's the problem. It's the system tolerating this level of interference with due process.
Hopefully, Mr Bayliss and his family have expert help next week. One of the odd things (in my opinion) is that the well-known firm who usually provide a solicitor pro bono to the bereaved, are representing the pilot. That narrowed the family's options, but they were still initially represented. This abruptly ceased after the ruling that it was not to be an Article 2 Inquest, and they were not represented at the Pre-Inquest Hearing earlier this year.
EDIT: Apologies, but I should make it clear that I think the senior officer at the XV179 Inquest was misled by briefings into misleading the court. The main lie was that, earlier in the proceedings, MoD denied ever knowing about Explosion Suppressant Foam, despite it being called up in mandated airworthiness regulations. Two MoD ESF specifications from 1971 were provided by a witness to the Coroner and Oz QC. Coroner David Masters accepted this evidence. tuc.