Jetblu

really? Yes.

If your question is only around admissibility in criminal proceedings do you accept such video evidence could be admitted in civil proceedings?

In criminal proceedings, the test is not whether evidence shows criminal activity.
The test is more to do with relevance. And it may not be the prosecution that wants to admit the video evidence, it may be the defence.

Regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully....there are several authorities. I suggest you go have a read.

"If your question is only around admissibility in criminal proceedings do you accept such video evidence could be admitted in civil proceedings?"


Possibly. If the tests were met.

"In criminal proceedings, the test is not whether evidence shows criminal activity.
The test is more to do with relevance. And it may not be the prosecution that wants to admit the video evidence, it may be the defence."

Correct. Whilst I pointed out that no criminal offence ever took place on the Go Pro, I never said that was 'the test' It was an observation of relevance.

"Regarding the admissibility of evidence obtained unlawfully....there are several authorities"

Correct. And again, my submission is that no authority have gained the purported Go Pro 'evidence' lawfully.
'If' the defence should ever need to use it, that would be a matter for them of course.

I'm reading all the time. :-)


....and you still never told us how 'evidence' gained unlawfully is admissible.

Standing by.

Apples and oranges in this case. The MOK was a Board of Enquiry and we are discussing Courts of Law (I think) which are very different things.

That said we seem to have more than enough Legal Eagles hovering around now and I ain't one (nor have I claimed to be one) so I'll get me coat.

The Old Fat One

Please stay. I enjoy reading your contributions.

Genghis
Not nearly as often as you choose to post your understanding of the law, in this and other forums.
I have mentioned it on more than one occasion because I've been concerned that readers might accept what you say but, more often than not, I've decided it's not worth bothering because you'll persist in doing so anyway. So you keep saying, in this and other forums.
Guard against over-statement. The aviation law world is very small and I was in it for a long time. I remain in contact with former colleagues and hear about what's going on/who's doing what, including expert witnesses used. Old habits die hard.
Your 'take on it' is wrong.
Civil cases: Broadly correct given the qualification "potentially".
Criminal cases: No. Much stricter rules apply.

D SQDRN I agree entirely.
Questions (without assertions) are, of course, very different.

The Old Fat OneWise advice.
You may have more success than I've had. ;)
Only two now, as far as I'm aware. The third (a solicitor) stopped posting. Properly so, because his firm is involved in civil proceedings arising from this accident.

Jetblu

You have misunderstood what D Sqdrn meant by 'several authorities'. In this context, and in very brief summary, 'authorities' are previous court decisions concerning the law which must be followed in subsequent cases. (Not investigating bodies.)
You have made some good points during this thread. I suggest you let your camera and 'unlawfully obtained' arguments go. You are on the wrong track.

Interesting, and I of course accept your point.

My experience is of course all about the process of analysing events and submitting "expert " evidence, and very little about the subsequent decision making process - which people like me get minimal sight of. I have never had any evidence rejected by a court - but equally your point reminds me that most of what I've done has been civil. This makes my understanding - yes - narrow.

Point taken. I'm a flying machine "expert " who knows a bit about some aspects of legal process, and enjoys a deep technical discussion. I'm not a legal expert.

Above all else however, I like the technical discussions! In that context this thread would benefit from more "I think that you are mistaken, here's why", and less "you don't know what you are talking about ". That, like yours earlier, is also very much a general point.

G

Flying Lawyer

In the context in which you write, you are indeed correct, I have misunderstood D SQDRN 97th IOTC and I apologise to him for that.

That said, and within revised context, s78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is still very clear.

Of course, the purported Go Pro 'evidence' is minuet should any case need answering, and I shall now refrain from mentioning it further.

Perhaps we should also remind ourselves that whilst several investigations are going on around Shoreham - and that is absolutely right and necessary, if anybody *knows* that prosecutions are going to happen, they aren't posting about that here. Nor should they. Similarly if there was such a prosecution, we also don't know (nor should anybody who knows say in public before anything is official) who would be being prosecuted.

I'm sure that as aviators we will all agree that the most important thing that comes out of all and any investigations into Shoreham will be the prevention of any repetition. There is then a very valid debate about whether that would actually be served by any kind of legal process, rather than "just" enforced learning and changes to best practices. However, that debate should perhaps not be had too publicly?

G

Well said Genghis.

I suppose that elsewhere there are forums for legal discussion into infinite detail, where perhaps the knowledge of aviation matters is not foremost. In those forums, the legal experts could be forgiven for not perfectly articulating legal matters. If legalities are not perfectly articulated here, that's understandable, it's an aviation forum. That said, learning more is always a good thing, particularly disciplines which would normally be at the periphery of what we do....

GenghisIf you are referring to your experience and understanding of both criminal and civil process, then I agree.

That is a bold claim.
I think it is very telling that not one of the extremely knowledgeable experts with whom I worked ever made such a claim. They claimed, with justification, to have expertise in some 'flying machines', some aspects of aeronautical engineering or, where it was the case, some aspects of both.

I almost invariably decided whose expert services should be engaged. That said, the best expert with whom I ever worked had been recruited before I became involved in the case. (I was representing BA.) Thereafter, I used him whenever appropriate and possible. I wasn't in the least surprised that lawyers on the opposing side began to use him in their subsequent cases. If he had been prepared to undertake more expert work he would have been engaged much more often.
Alexander Pope's well-known comment about a little learning comes to mind.
It is still valid, 300 years later.

There are times when the latter, sometimes expressed more bluntly than on others, is appropriate.
In particular, when people have refused to take more subtle hints.


I agree there is scope for a very valid debate amongst aviators about whether aviation safety is well served/improved by the criminal process. It's being going on intermittently for some years.
Understandably, opinions remain divided - primarily between those who focus on the short term and those concerned about the long term.
It would not, for the reasons you give, be appropriate to have such a debate in this thread.

You did note my inverted commas around "expert" ? They were entirely deliberate, for exactly the reason you give.

G

I'm not sure what causes so much angst in these threads but some might do well to read the origins of remarks/comments because that gives proper context.

I can't see anyone banging the table for a prosecution speaking for myself on the Go-Pro footage I initially asked the question if as pilots we felt such recordings were primarily the same as aviation specific FDR's, etc. Nobody has given a view on that, yet it was a question and follow up comments of how in other walks of life mobile phone footage seems freely obtained, would we want it used in aviation are all posed as questions, and still those most critical don't offer an opinion other than everyone else is an idiot and knows nothing.

The RAeS session that is suggested is a silly point was a reflection of a personal take on things. I did not feel there was this grand consensus of opinion and one might think if that view is mistaken it seems odd that this vast body of clever people don't work to change the way accident reports might be used in future?

FL it was you that introduced the Moth point and in that incident the differing emphasis of pilot and AAIB doesn't strike me as some grand obstruction to aviation safety investigation. Perhaps on another day and another set of circumstances it may prove to be, but then perhaps someone (maybe yourself?) could look at para.3 above?

However for now we have no final report and therefore no accepted rationale of its cause or even possible cause, if aviation safety is our primary concern (and very many suggest it is) then given a new season of display aviation is upon us with some regulation changes perhaps it isn't surprising some feel that is sub-optimal, especially if there is a feeling that some basic information should and could be known almost immediately or items that seem relevant had been raised in the past...

I might be miss calling things but I am not sure the processes involved (by which one means in and out of the aeroplane) in the build up to this incident will be 'best practice' for the future. The ethos of aviation possibly should avoid victims of displays, fuel management, WX decisions and so on. I don't need a lawyer or a court room to educate me in that regard.

Phew!
The last time I struggled to read something like that it was written by Virgina Woolf in stream of consciousness style - erratic musings in long disorganized sentences reflecting a stream of random thoughts passing through a character's mind.

Some might do well to give the origin of their remarks/comments so we can see the context, starting with you.

RAeS session?
Moth point?
I've scanned the thread but can't found either. :confused:

Can you give us the post numbers?

Glad it's not just me that's struggling with that post then Bronx!

It's even more complicated than you might think; to understand the context you seek, you must first be au fait with the other Hunter thread over on the mil forum... But you might remain none the wiser.

Seems fairly straight-forward to me ?

Apologies if this has been covered: Am I to understand that, although it has issued various papers, the CAA has not issued a full report on what precisely and exactly happened and why it happened?

If so, why is it appearing to be a dog in the manger and trying to spoil the experience of so many spectators when it doesn't seem to know, as yet, what came to pass?
Shoreham disaster leads to tightening of air show regulations | UK news | The Guardian

The CAA don't report on the accident. That is the AAIB's task.

This is the final report of the air show safety reviw, there will be common themes between the two reports, and I suspect some of the new procedures from the CAA report will tie in to parts of the accident report in due course.

Edit to correct 'report' to 'review'

We can always count on the Campaign to react 1. After an event. 2. Before they know the facts and 3. In a manner that may have no bearing on the facts. It appears (I don't have the full facts either) the Hunter stoofed due to technique, not a failing in the aircraft itself. Whilst paperwork and "quality" have their place in aviation, it is what the components did on the day that matters. Here they performed as intended; as old and knackered as they were. Therefore, in a cloud of brown smoke and PR, the CAA have fixed a problem that doesn't need fixing and failed to fix the one that does. If nothing else, the CAA are reliably unreliable.

PM

Think you need to refrain from stating it was a technique not a failing in the aircraft itself. The AAIB have not published a full or even a more detailed report on the aircraft itself. They have merely highlighted some issues with the paperwork and maintenance and also the conduct and procedures of that particular airshow, that need immediate review. The actual report into the aircraft itself or the pilots planned routine has not been published.


As stated before, the aircraft should not have been issued with a PtF due to the out of date seat cartridges and possible engine MPD, regardless that these may not have contributed to the accident. If the paperwork hadn't been fudged then the aircraft wouldn't have been taking part and therefore wouldn't have crashed.


If you look at Rainbow Aviation the aircraft was for sale and clearly stated that a Major service was due Jan2012, presumably this was carried out by the previous MO (as the aircraft wasn't sold until Jul12) then the engine MPD would have expired Jan14 not Dec14 as stated. If the MPD expired Dec14 then the MPD must have been done Jan13 but it was with the new MO at this time, who were not approved to carry out the MPD. So looking at the dates its a bit odd. Same with the cartridges as these presumably were replaced in Jan11 or later (depending on manufacturing dates) as the advert for sale states expiry Jan13. Are these the only things that have been 'overlooked' too.

Thanks for helpful clarification in#883, JS and your observations in #884, PM on the CAA. Many people's summer fun will now be spoiled for nothing whatsoever. But what to do to get these hasty and ill conceived new regs altered? I might try my MP since she is new and seems keen.

(I had a couple of hours in a T7 back in the sixties. Wow. I asked the instructor for guidance on what not to do to break his aircraft. He gave me a look which showed "withering" and "amusing" in equal proportion, and said that there was nothing I could do to damage it - at least, whilst he was still there).

This accident is really sad but the possible consequences are too.