PT6Driver; I feel your pain! I don't understand why some insist in totally changing the meaning of a post by selecting one part in isolation.
Never Fretter;
I said
The Judge could have reserved judgment until after the AAIB Report was published.
and then you translated that into;
So you advocate using an AAIB report as evidence in court?
The answer to this was in the very next sentence in the same post;
The safety investigation could be completed without interference and the prosecutor would then have an expert opinion on the cause of the crash to inform his decision on criminal activity.
To avoid further confusion, I suggested that the judge could have adjourned the case and the safety investigation can continue without being prejudiced. The prosecutor can
'form an opinion' from the report (this is a legal term and is NOT the same as making a judgement). All this happens BEFORE any court case. He has to consider whether the case has a realistic chance of succeeding in front of a judge. For example (hypothetically) if the safety investigation discovered a fatigue failure of a vital component which rendered the heli unflyable then a finding such as this would provide the prosecutor with information that would allow him to form an opinion without ever accessing the CVR. KenV and PT6Driver both nailed it regarding the legal case. The prosecution must build their own separate case and cannot use the safety investigation in court.
Hopefully that has cleared it up for you.