It looks like the contents of the message sent out by BALPA to it's members I referred to in permalink #1006 is now in the public domain on another forum..that being the case this is the main body of the message, minus some preamble, part of which was an acknowledgement of the role the ECA and IFALPA played in proceedings:
Shoreham case
In the Shoreham case, the police made an application to the High Court for access to certain items of AAIB working materials. In particular, the police asked for disclosure of the AAIB’s notes of witness interviews. They also asked for film footage from two cameras the pilot had placed inside the cockpit.
The judges refused to order disclosure of the witness interview notes. They ruled that it is ‘almost inconceivable’ that the court would ever order disclosure of statements made to the AAIB. They said that disclosure would have a ‘serious and obvious chilling effect’ which would tend to deter people from answering AAIB inspectors’ questions with the necessary candour and that this would ‘seriously hamper’ future investigations and the protection of the public. The Court also stated that it would be unfair to require such disclosure given the AAIB's powers to obtain answers to questions by compulsion.
However, the judges did order disclosure of the film footage but, in doing so, they emphasised that this was not mandatory CVFDR data but footage from cameras which had been voluntarily installed for private leisure and commercial purposes. It is not, therefore, a ruling that CVFDR data can be disclosed.
Augusta Westland case
In the Augusta Westland helicopter case, the coroner had ordered that the CVFDR information be disclosed to her. The coroner’s power to do this was challenged by way of a judicial review.
The judges ruled that coroners do not have the power to order the disclosure of AAIB investigation materials. The only court which can make any such order is the High Court. Plus, in an important legal development, the Lord Chief Justice ruled that, unless there is credible evidence that the AAIB's investigation is incomplete, flawed, or deficient, coroners should simply accept the AAIB’s conclusions, should not re-open the matter and should regard the cause of the accident as outside the scope of the inquest.
A ‘major milestone’
These two judgments are a major milestone in the journey to protect flight safety. They have now set the law in England and Wales and they are likely to be highly influential in courts all around the world as they specifically consider European legislation. The court has prioritised the importance of protecting the just safety culture and the integrity of air accident investigations above the need to investigate blame. Those answering AAIB inspectors’ questions can now do so knowing that the law says that it is ‘almost inconceivable’ that their interview records would be disclosed to the police or a prosecutor.