Fox3
I think the answer depends on the terms of reference laid down by the Scottish Crown Office (to whom submissions have already been made in this case). The Chinook case is a good example. The Sheriff was robust, totally rejecting MoD's claims. The practical difficulty is that MoD (seen to be in another country and subject to different laws) are usually allowed to judge their own case - again, they were simply permitted to ignore the Sheriff and Houses of Commons and Lords on Chinook.
With so few people caring or having the time or energy for 17 year campaigns, we can see the result. Chinook (and Nimrod, C130 etc) are too readily forgotten and we are fobbed off, yet again, with "Now we have the MAA, this can never happen again, so let's move on". The MAA is now over 4 years old and the elephant in the room remains. According to MoD, in reply to an MP, not one of its employees has ever reported airworthiness failings. That means either (a) they have failed in their legal obligation or (b) they are so inexperienced they have never worked in this domain before. There is a (c), that MoD are wrong to say this, but as of January this year they remain absolutely insistent and consistent on this matter. Either way, the current set up is unconvincing, witnessed by........
MoD/MAA and the Secy of State (Hammond) have played their hand on this one, demonstrating willingness to serially lie. For example, Hammond's December 2013 statement in the House, in reply to Angus Robertson MP, that CWS could never have been fitted on time to influence this accident, so the issue is academic. The SI of course totally contradicted this, stating categorically that it could and should have been fitted in time, and would have in all probability prevented the accident. Well done the SI - but did they know they were making career limiting statements?! And how stupid/arrogant are the MAA for allowing this to be released unredacted, knowing it contradicts Hammond. A 5 year Technology Demonstrator Programme had resulted in us being good to go in 1996, the 1998 submission actually specifying we could proceed direct to "C Model". (That is, we were one very small administrative step from Main Gate, in today's terms). Now MAA and Hammond claim that one small step would have taken over 16 years! Will Hammond withdraw? What will the same MoD source (MAA) say in their briefing when the question is asked?