It is only deemed a criminal act if found to be so by a court of law; a deliberate malicious act is in a different category only insofar as it is intentional, but even then, it's still only technically that after a court has said so.
But: bomb - it's clear there was a criminal act (whether proven in court or not), the question is by whom; maintenance error - it's clear that there was an error, and probably by whom, but not whether it was a criminal act. If AAIB start making anything other than the most clearcut judgements (basically if they judge anything less clearcut than a bomb blast to be a criminal act), they are making judgements they really shouldn't and confusing their role.
It seems to me therefore unreasonable to expect AAIB and the police to gather the same evidence, and in the same way. The two bodies have different objectives (neither of which, technically, is a detailed report on the causes of the accident - although both may to some extent do so). One is there to decide if there are recommendations that can be issued to prevent future accidents, the other is there to decide of they believe that a crime has been committed, and if so to present a case for prosecution.
Given that, it's appropriate that they each gather their own evidence, and that some form of legal process is there before one releases data to the other as they were gathered under different pretexts.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 30th Jul 2016 at 15:12.