Inquest - Corporal Jonathan Bayliss RAF

[Lordflasheart]

The Enemy IS the State

...
The Enemy IS the State ......

Corporal Bayliss should not have died. His death was wholly avoidable. Under the circumstances, he didn't stand a chance.

MoD through their barrister, persuaded the relatively inexperienced coroner that it should NOT be an Article 2 Inquest. One aspect of that decision seems to be that the coroner is thereby limited to the bare facts of the death and unable to apportion blame or civil or criminal liability .... though a narrative verdict can be delivered.

In the case of an Article 2 inquest, the coroner can consider 'system neglect.' This is sometimes referred to as a 'Middleton Inquest.' That is where we should be at.

Is the inquest likely to become adversarial ?

Regardless of any procedural limits on the coroner, I feel sure that won't prevent the MoD barrister pointing fingers - and you can be sure he won't be pointing fingers at the MoD who pay him.

MoD will know that if it were an Article 2 inquest, it would be MoD under scrutiny.

A 'defendent' who hoped to be found not guilty, would be unwise to admit guilt even to their defence counsel. Thus MoD has probably made great effort to limit what their own barrister knows about the case.

Jon Bayliss paid the ultimate price, which cannot be refunded. Whether or not MoD has paid, or will pay anything to the 'family' possibly under NDA, that can't replace their loss.

It would be difficult, but in the feverish atmosphere of the coroner's court, not impossible, to point a non-aviation no-holds-barred finger at Jon, sowing only tiny seeds of suggestion that 'he might have realised ....' You only have to consider what rubbish can appear in the national press about aviation matters. If the family are not represented, that would only leave the coroner to speak up.

So if MoD has it's way, that really only leaves the pilot. It might even be to the benefit of the pilot for this to be an Article 2 Inquest. He may be just as much a victim - of the rotten system that rules his flying, if the MoD barrister has been instructed that in extremis, he is to do a hatchet job. I think he said previously something simple like 'the aircraft stalled - that's it.' He would then ask 'Who stalled the aircraft ?' You can see where this might lead.

Article 2(1) of the ECHR states: “everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law”. That places two substantive duties on member states:

1. A negative obligation to refrain from taking life

2. A positive obligation to take appropriate measures to safeguard life.

It seems in this case that substantive duties under Article 2 (point 2 above) have been breached. That is why it should be an Article 2 Inquest. It is not too late.

However, switching to Article 2 would require a substantial adjournment to be declared next Tuesday, Nov 2nd. That would be terribly inconvenient for some of the parties who want this out of the way, before it gets any worse. .... The coroner has been quoted as saying she would keep it under review. It is within her power. It is not too late.

LFH
...