Originally Posted by
Easy Street
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'. Aviation history is littered with examples of pilots who have died due to their own grossly negligent flying, so the self-preservation argument is of no value.
There is a distinction between negligence and gross negligence. Negligence is commonly defined as ‘the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk’. Whereas, gross negligence is ‘a conscious act or omission in disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party’. (Ormerod D. Smith 8 Hogan’s Criminal Law (11th edition)). In other words, degree relates to appreciation of the risks involved, together with serious disregard or indifference to an obvious risk. The outcome (in this case death) is not a factor in determining degree.
Based on that definition, the Coroner's ruling is that the pilot made a conscious decision to fly the entire manouevre as he did. I wonder if the pilot would have accepted 'negligence'? That huge leap to 'gross negligence' forced a court case, and a defence which the prosecution couldn't refute.
It is seldom if ever mentioned that the Judge directed the jury on several points of evidence, specifically factual errors in the prosecution case. It wasn't a simple 'CI or not CI' question. Even if the CI defence had not been advanced, it is likely the same verdict would have been reached, as fundamental errors by the prosecution, and failure to disclose evidence, tends not to sit well when the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Moreover, the pilot's acceptance of his error, and refusal to blame others, despite their CONSCIOUS acts of commission and omission, clearly went down well with the Judge.
Cognitive Impairment is not a 'unique medical condition'. Most people here should know that, if only from MoD advancing it in the Sean Cunningham case, both in the SI report and in court. The difference being, at Shoreham there was no claim it was self-induced.