Originally Posted by
Easy Street
A finding of unlawful killing is not effectively a criminal judgment.
Easy Street...... I think you probably realise I know the different standards of proof. I said 'effectively', because the Coroner mentioned the (criminal) gross negligence manslaughter test (e.g. ‘exceptionally bad’). (See DaveReidUK’s post). The same words are used in both courts. In many ways, a distinction without a difference. (Edit - Raikum got in first!).
Strictly speaking, post-trial there wasn’t any need for an Inquest. The Coroner gave various reasons why she was holding one, but was not allowed to address the key question of WHY the aircraft was being flown the way it was. That was determined at trial but, as you say, against a different standard. She wanted to ask, but was stopped by the High Court.
At that point the Inquest could never meet its stated aims, especially if held under Article 2. We know what she said the basis of her finding was, but it was a poor basis given she KNEW the AAIB report she relied upon was wrong/flawed/incomplete, and that others had made serious errors.
Despite what others have said (above), the pilot admitted his errors (which I’ll take his word for as I can’t explain them, and when doing so he was referring to a GoPro video that has never been released) - errors that took place in a very short period of time, each compounding the next. But others committed errors and even offences over a much longer period, knew it, didn’t correct them, continued, and then fought for them not to be disclosed.