I doubt that in AAIB's eyes either Shoreham, or Clutha were other than accidents - awful tragic accidents with appalling loss of life, but still accidents.
One of the things I've noticed however is often a peculiarity of court cases related to aviation accidents is that a large role of the trial is to determine whether a crime was committed at all. It makes for a very different dynamic to my understanding of how the judicial system works.
Where there's a murder, robbery, drugs have been sold - there's little doubt that a crime was committed. The question is - by whom?
Where there's an air crash - there's no question who was in charge - but if it comes to court, the question is - was there a crime? In the vast majority of cases that, surely, is far from clearcut. That CAA loses, I believe, 75% of prosecutions that are contested reinforces that point.
G