Pittsextra
You highlighted the Rogers v Hoyle case.
I referred to the appeal in that case because it produced a significant and far-reaching decision.
I'm unclear how this case supports the fear of uncooperative witness or pilot statements to the AAIB.
That is because you persist in focusing upon the facts/circumstances (as you see them) of the particular accident and associated report. If you could stop doing that all should become clear.
I just think in a GA context they are overplayed as the majority of issues raised relate to commercial operations. Cockpit voice, FDRs, pilot unions, whistle blowers and 'organisational lawyers' seem consistent with that.
That is demonstrably not true.
You have, in an attempt to support your argument, selected just a few items from the list of AAIB objections summarised in post 1490.
- The use of the AAIB report as evidence in the Rogers v Hoyle case is of importance only to the parties.
You appear to think it made no difference in the circumstances of that case. The experienced specialist lawyers on both sides thought it did. On the basis that almost anything is possible, I suppose it's possible that you could be right and all the lawyers were wrong. I leave you to reflect upon how likely that is.
- The circumstances of the accident which led to the civil claim were not relevant to the Court of Appeal's decision, nor were the contents of the AAIB report. That is because the Court was considering and deciding a point of legal principle.
The detailed judgment explaining the decision is more than 11,000 words long. The facts of the accident took up 52 of those words. (The introductory paragraph.) I haven't checked but, from recollection, I don't think it contained any reference to the contents of the report. I would not expect it to because the Court decided a point of legal principle.
- The importance of the Court of Appeal's decision is that it applies to all civil cases in which a party seeks to use an AAIB report as evidence - not just to the case of Rogers v Hoyle.
It has been described by some legal commentators using legal jargon as a 'landmark' decision for that reason. It was. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, judges now have to allow entire AAIB reports to be used as evidence in civil cases.
Neither the AAIB nor anyone else suggested that all the AAIB objections applied in the Rogers v Hoyle case.
For some reason, you fail to grasp that the AAIB did not simply object to the use of its report as evidence in the particular case. It was opposed, for the reasons summarised in post 1490, to its reports being adduced as evidence in court proceedings - whether relating to commercial aviation or GA accidents.
ie The potential detrimental effect upon future air accident investigations.
I don't wish to appear discourteous but I see no point in continuing exchanges with you. I have explained the implications of the decision as simply as I can. This post is my final attempt. If you are still unable to understand, so be it.
(Edit)
You haven't answered the question I asked earlier re the RAeS seminar:
I spoke from the floor in two of the sessions.
Did you offer your opinion(s)?
It was a perfect opportunity to have your opinions considered by many people with relevant expertise - legal and other, including a former AAIB Chief Inspector.
.