misterp
you have a good handle on the wednesbury unreasonableness aspect of JR but it is not the be-all-and-end-all of JR. The purpose of JR is not to only examine the decision itself but how the decision was reached. minor point but exceptionally important.
one of the principles most sacred amongst lawyers and the judiciary is that justice must not only be done but must also be perceived to have been done. perception is almost more important than actual justice.
secondly, this finding of gross negligence is equivalent to manslaughter and the satisfaction of the burden of proof has received much commentary. This raises the question of whether the pilots received a fair trial - a human right guaranteed by Art 6 (1) of the human rights act. As there will be human rights issues the principle of wednesbury unreasonableness is restricted so that it is almost irrelevant, it also has the effect of shifting the onus from the complainant to prove the decision was unreasonable to the defendant to prove that it was not.
thirdly, in my opinion it could be demonstrated that the MoD fettered their discretion (individually capable of JR) when dealing with this case. The MoD has refused to accept the findings of a fatal accident inquiry, public accounts committee inquiry and the house of lords select committee. I dont think it would be too difficult to argue that the MoD's collective mind remained closed and refused to examine the case on its legal merits.
few points just off the top of my head from a tin-pot ex lawyer. just imagine what a suitably eminent QC would make of it. i suggest Mrs Cherie Bliar QC, quite good apparently - husband a bit of a gutless no-mark...
things arent so black just yet.
i say again - i for one would gladly contribute to a trust for the families to continue this fight.