Most of the heat in this discussion and the continuous circular argument stems from, on one hand the belief that gross negligence has not been proven and on the other that pilot error is at least possible. I have asked this question before but in view of the imminent review it bears repeating. If there is no evidence to prove gross negligence there is none to prove that it was not pilot error. If the verdict of gross negligence is over-turned, what other verdicts are possible?
In the Government/MOD response to the House of Lords Select Committee report, there is a section headed ‘Standard of Proof’, paras 24-26, which lists the prime criteria that reviewing officers are required to observe. Are these criteria valid?