The debate, which I thought may be worth encouraging, was whether the interest of justice prevailed over confidentiality.
The disclosure in the ‘interests of justice’ principle is enshrined in European law, under Article 14.3 of EU Regulation 996/2010 (the Regulation). The Regulation reinforces the principles of ICAO Annex 13 which provides for international standards and recommended practices in relation to air accident and incident investigations, the primary objective of which is to prevent future accidents and incidents and not to apportion blame or liability. Inevitably, while the official air accident investigation and any criminal investigation are intended to remain entirely separate, the paths of the two investigations inevitably cross on numerous occasions throughout the process and are driven by entirely different agendas.
The fundamental principle which should underpin all accident and incident investigations is ‘just culture’. As Recital 24 of the Regulation clearly states, civil aviation systems aim to ‘promote a non-punitive environment facilitating the spontaneous reporting of occurrences’. Yet some argue that increasing pressure and, to some extent, public clamour to attribute blame and immediately criminalise investigations, as was seen in the aftermath of the Germanwings tragedy when the French public prosecutor was prominent in early public announcements, might be harmful to and fetter future accident investigation and reporting.
It therefore boils down to a very precarious tight rope balancing act.