Here's the full judgment:
Chief Constable of Sussex Police v (1) Secretary of State for Transport (2) BALPA [2016] EWHC 2280 (QB)
The application for disclosure was evidently treated seriously as it was dealt with by two senior judges, one of whom was the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. (The judgment itself is by the other, Mr Justice Singh, but having the LCJ sign off on it means that this will be taken as strong guidance on how to handle such requests.) BALPA appears to have intervened to make representations on behalf of its members.
Paras 1 to 8 set out the background. Of note is para 8 in which the court records that the AAIB confirmed at the hearing in July that the report was complete and would be likely to be released in the Autumn.
Paras 9 to 26 recite the relevant legislation and probably aren't of much interest to non-lawyers.
Paras 27 to 34 discuss the very limited previous history of similar applications - one each in Scotland, Canada, New Zealand and Australia. This appears to have been the first such application in the courts of England and Wales.
Paras 35 to 39 discuss the procedure. As a lawyer it is ironically amusing to see the police on the other side of a 'public interest immunity' disclosure argument for once!
Para 40 explains the types of disclosure sought: statements from Mr Hill, cockpit video and results of investigatory tests.
Paras 41 to 45 explain why the Court is not ordering disclosure of Mr Hill's statements. There are two reasons: the AAIB can compel a witness to answer, so there is no 'no comment', and there was no evidence that Mr Hill was cautioned before the AAIB interview. Also, as Singh J points out, the police are free to interview Mr Hill themselves and have done so.
Paras 46 to 50 explain why the Court is ordering disclosure of the cockpit video to the police. The reason given is that where, as here, it seems that the videos were being made for commercial rather than safety monitoring purposes the Court doubts that its order will deter pilots from making such recordings.
Paras 51 to 54 explain why the court is not ordering disclosure of expert investigations. The reason given is that such reports will be published as annexes to the AAIB report in due course and the police are in any event free to commission their own analyses.
Paras 55 and 56 summarise the outcome. Note that the disclosed videos are ordered to be made available only to the Sussex Police, the CPS if necessary, and Mr Hill and his lawyers (whom I assume have probably got copies already, but this is always good practice.)