From the Exectuve Summary of the Report
Review Report | Mull of Kintyre Review:
1.4.28 In fairness to them [Day and Wratten] we do not consider that the application of the unfamiliar standard of proof was an easy task for professional aviators with no legal training. Legal advice was sought but the advice provided did not assist the Reviewing Officers. Instead it provided them with comfort when it should have emphasised the restriction on their power.
Unfamilar standard of proof? Had these two never seen a BoI before? Never had to consider the outcome of a BoI before? They sought advice such that they could circumvent the RAF's own rules - talk about 'power corrupting, absolutely'!
1.4.30 Since 1995 the Ministry of Defence has continued resolutely to defend the finding of gross negligence and to rebuff all public and private representations that the finding should be reconsidered even when the representations included cogent arguments based on a sound understanding of the effect of the relevant Regulations. We find it extremely regrettable that the Department should have taken such an intransigent stance on the basis of an inadequate understanding of the RAF’s own Regulations in a matter which involved the reputation of men who died on active service.
The MoD's consistent position has been one of 'I hope nobody finds out we f****d up!