In a High Court it is the duty of the Jury; in the case of the Chinook Board of Inquiry it was the duty of the Reviewing Officers to agree or amend the findings of the BOI and to apportion any blame (should that be required) in accordance with the Air Force Act.
Not entirely accurate Caz.
Queen's Regulations, Chapter 17, para 1259 (3):
Constitution of a Board
The president and members of a Board (mimimum number President plus 2) should have no personal interest either in the subject matter of an investigation, or the individuals likely to be concerned in it.
No mention of the Reviewing Officers being part of the Board constitution, as far as I can see and there is no provision in those Regulations that permits them to substitute the findings of the Board with their own. What QR1271 (6) actually states is
Each transmitting authority is to examine the proceedings and record thereon an opinion upon the matters investigated. Proceedings submitted to the MoD, unless indicated in other regulations, are to be in duplicate including the original.
The Reviewing Officers, according to QRs, are entitled to their opinion, but there appears to be no authority allowing them to substitute the finding of a properly constituted Board. Legal Services could not clarify this point, so I would be grateful if anyone out there could give me a definitive answer and point me to the relevent documentation.
As an aside, Lt (RN) Kingston was informally interviewed by the Board on 7 Jun 94, and formally interviewed on 9 Jun 94. He was also called to give evidence at the FAI over a three day period in Jan 96. I am sure that the issue surrounding the planning of the sortie would have been covered to the satisfaction of those conducting the investigations.
My best, as always,
Brian
"Justice has no expiry date" - John Cook