Thanks for the clarification,
Raikum. And in particular your closing observation:
"The irony of course is that it could be said that the pilot's legal advisors didn't disagree that the pilot's standard of flying was truly exceptionally bad and indeed used that categorization as evidence that other factors must have been in play: hence cognitive impairment.
All that said, I will be intrigued to see the what the grounds for the judicial review, or whatever it is now called, As they nailed their colours to the CI mast, I don't see how they can now argue that that the coroner got it wrong on how to judge the standard of their client's actions or failures."
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does
my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.