Thank you Dusty B. I think the point is that the 'publicly available' information (i.e. MoD's version) is full of holes. Did he mention the serious offences admitted in the SI report? Primarily, a series of false declarations about and within the Aircraft Document Set which the Type Airworthiness Authority would be party to, or certainly be expected to spot at a casual glance.
We all know that at a certain level people just sign papers thrust under their noses. But if asked to put my name to a legally binding document saying I have personally assured myself there is a valid safety case, I'd expect said safety case report to be attached. Indeed, a certified copy in the filing cabinet closest to hand. One's 2 Star has to assess the top ten risks every month. Here, 'can't find safety case report for ejection seat' would be #1, so what on earth was said at these reviews? That 2 Star has a lot to answer for.
I'd be interested to know what part M-B is thought to have played. There was a suggestion that, in 1990, they didn't disseminate a technical bulletin; but whoever wrote that hadn't bothered to read MoD's own regulations. Assuming the company don't roll over to preserve relations, I suspect MoD will be asked some pretty embarrassing questions.
Pity the court case was delayed. It wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes had Judge Haddon-Cave sat, as originally planned. No safety case? Directed verdict and early lunch. Anything else and he'd have looked foolish.