Abbey Road
I assume that includes all the documents whose existence has been learnt about since the last enquiry, whether they have yet been seen by any enquiry? Can the current Enquiry ask for documents it believes should exist?
You ask very good questions which the Review has so far declined to answer directly.
They HAVE sought certain source documents of the day from MoD, who have not been able to supply them despite them being quoted by the BoI. The good news is that the Review has then asked individual staffs who have provided their own copies. (Meaning parts of MoD didn't try very hard to be helpful in the first place - no surprise there then). In turn, this led to the question whether the Freedom of Information Act restrictions applied to the Review (whereby MoD can cite expense as a reason not to supply and, bizarrely, what they do supply does not have to be accurate or truthful). They didn't answer that either.
As for documents that MoD withheld from the various inquiries over the years or simply ignored when giving evidence (FADEC is a good example), the Review is not being very proactive, relying on individuals to make submissions and enclosing said documents. Again, they don't offer comment on whether or not these are welcome. (I imagine MoD thinks they are not). There is no evidence yet of follow-up action.
Finally, I know the Review has been advised of certain documents which the regulations demand should exist, but MoD denies the existence of and, not surprisingly, didn't mention at the time. This is a different issue and I believe the review should simply rule that MoD has not complied with its own regulations - thus, "organisational fault" should be included as a contributory cause. These papers mainly relate to airworthiness - it is unnecessary in my opinion for the Review to dwell too long on this given the evidence that both Mk1 and Mk2 were not airworthy; something admitted 4 years later to the Public Accounts Committee and now openly conceded by MoD.
The remaining questions (in my opinion) relate to why this information was withheld from those charged with signing for airworthiness and, whether or not, these individuals would have taken a different view had they been informed in the early 90s of the systemic failings Haddon-Cave claims only started in 1998. (This does not get away from the fact the aircraft was not properly cleared to fly anyway, but that is a slightly different issue).
A mixed bag really. It would seem they are, rightly, keeping things close to their chests but, like Haddon-Cave, avoiding the detail - which is where the Devil lies. Perhaps the Mull Group could expand on the above and say if they have submitted "new" evidence.