I have read the document and have to say that given the submissions I am surprised that the judge has made this decision.
This decision will not affect the current investigation by the AAIB, however it does have a bearing on future investigations.
As highlighted by the intrested parties the police have been trying for some time to gain access to this data, firstly by demanding the FDM data, then when that failed the cvr/fdr.
At no point has the Lord Advocate produced any evidence that criminal activity has taken place nor did he produce any reasonable reason for pursuing this action.
He did not offer any proof or evidence that future investigations will not be adversely affected.
On the other hand plenty of reasons not to disclose were offered by the Secretary of State, the AAIB and the other interested parties.
Because todate there has been no evidence of mechanical failure the police appear to be taking the line that some form of negligence took place. They are therefore fishing for data to back up that assertion without any other evidence to back up this line of enquiry.
The judge notes that this is the first time this action has been taken and would appear to assume that there wont be further application as a result of previous history.
However having been granted this crack in the doorway, police Scotland will along with other uk police forces, not hesitate to push the door open.
A precident has been set whether we like it or not and expect to see more applications even when there have been no deaths or injuries. The police will use this as an excuse to further their own power.