Martin Baker to be prosecuted over death of Flt Lt. Sean Cunningham
As has been said already, but perhaps Occams razor requires to be said again : MB took one for the team.
All loose ends tied up, a guilty party blamed and punished. All legal lines of enquiry closed. Nothing more to see here.
The fine is a small price to pay to further cement the cosy relationship with a key customer, and it was only the company which plead guilty, not any individuals.
As cynical an act as I have seen for some time, but not unprecedentedly cynical.
All loose ends tied up, a guilty party blamed and punished. All legal lines of enquiry closed. Nothing more to see here.
The fine is a small price to pay to further cement the cosy relationship with a key customer, and it was only the company which plead guilty, not any individuals.
As cynical an act as I have seen for some time, but not unprecedentedly cynical.
Falcon900
Indeed.
The trouble with such a cynical commercial decision is that it ignores the legal obligation to endeavour to prevent recurrence. However, MoD has the same obligation, and ignores it with impunity. So, too, the Coroner, but he was lied to in 2014; the scale of which only became apparent when the SI report was released after the Inquest. An even more cynical decision by MoD, preventing independent assessment. When the details were provided to Coroner Stuart Fisher before M-B's trial in 2018, he immediately sent them to the Judge. She was also lied to, but unlike the Coroner had all the necessary exculpatory evidence.
All these machinations make for a complex story; but at the most basic level the charge against M-B was irrelevant to the accident. The HSE's position was that, had the information been provided, the death would have been avoided. Nonsense. The information WAS provided. Not only did MoD choose not to implement it, it issued contradictory instructions; and did so again after the accident. That decision by MoD divorced supply of information from the accident.
And then Jonathan Bayliss was killed, the SI report repeating 12 recommendations.
In 2009 Haddon-Cave's report concentrated on a poor safety case. Here, there wasn't one. I wonder how he'd have dealt with this had he continued as Judge? Did he recuse himself, recognising the evidence would contradict much of his report? How convenient it wasn't aired in court.
Indeed.
The trouble with such a cynical commercial decision is that it ignores the legal obligation to endeavour to prevent recurrence. However, MoD has the same obligation, and ignores it with impunity. So, too, the Coroner, but he was lied to in 2014; the scale of which only became apparent when the SI report was released after the Inquest. An even more cynical decision by MoD, preventing independent assessment. When the details were provided to Coroner Stuart Fisher before M-B's trial in 2018, he immediately sent them to the Judge. She was also lied to, but unlike the Coroner had all the necessary exculpatory evidence.
All these machinations make for a complex story; but at the most basic level the charge against M-B was irrelevant to the accident. The HSE's position was that, had the information been provided, the death would have been avoided. Nonsense. The information WAS provided. Not only did MoD choose not to implement it, it issued contradictory instructions; and did so again after the accident. That decision by MoD divorced supply of information from the accident.
And then Jonathan Bayliss was killed, the SI report repeating 12 recommendations.
In 2009 Haddon-Cave's report concentrated on a poor safety case. Here, there wasn't one. I wonder how he'd have dealt with this had he continued as Judge? Did he recuse himself, recognising the evidence would contradict much of his report? How convenient it wasn't aired in court.
This travesty of justice was perpetrated by the accused, the prosecution, and the judiciary. All three were fully informed of the evidence that Sean Cunningham died due to the Gross Negligence of the MOD and the RAF High Command (to all intents and purposes, one and the same). MBAL cynically went along with this farrago, as tuc reminds us, for purely commercial reasons. In doing so they have set back a golden opportunity to reveal the VSO cover up standing in the way of UK Military AIr Safety reform. Ironic, given the lives saved by their products over more than three quarters of a century. All lost in a thrice. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy....
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,761
Received 2,742 Likes
on
1,168 Posts
Can the family not bring a private prosecution / case against the VSO involved and see him answer for it?
...
Well, let's hope the Bayliss Coroner reads the XX 204 SI thoroughly and understands all the implications and repetitions therein. I could recommend swotting up on PPRuNe and reading a few good books on the subject.
Would she have had the customary visit to (or from) MoD to discuss 'how we like our military inquests to be conducted' ? We know the Coroner accepted the blandishments of MoD's barrister and rejected the idea of an Article 2 Inquest. That suggests it has already been accepted as an isolated accident with no previous, unless she decides to change her mind.
Will any potential court cases depend on outcomes of the Coroner's Inquest and the verdict ?
Did the Hawk T1A have a valid Safety Case in March 2018 ?
Does the Hawk T1A currently have a valid Safety Case ?
LFH
...
And then Jonathan Bayliss was killed, the SI report repeating 12 recommendations.
Would she have had the customary visit to (or from) MoD to discuss 'how we like our military inquests to be conducted' ? We know the Coroner accepted the blandishments of MoD's barrister and rejected the idea of an Article 2 Inquest. That suggests it has already been accepted as an isolated accident with no previous, unless she decides to change her mind.
Will any potential court cases depend on outcomes of the Coroner's Inquest and the verdict ?
Did the Hawk T1A have a valid Safety Case in March 2018 ?
Does the Hawk T1A currently have a valid Safety Case ?
LFH
...
I have just finished the revised and updated book. A revelation, more so than the original if that is possible. Why were the new images it includes from the crime scene not in MoD's report? The one with XX177's drogue shackle, next to another, shows just how much effort was required when overtightening the nut and bolt. The image of properly assembled shackles shows just how much clearance was built in to the design. And Martin-Baker supplied a special tool kit, with the correct spanners, which was not used. Instead, a socket and ratchet wrench. How the hell did this get left out of the report? Highly recommended.
This travesty of justice was perpetrated by the accused, the prosecution, and the judiciary. All three were fully informed of the evidence that Sean Cunningham died due to the Gross Negligence of the MOD and the RAF High Command (to all intents and purposes, one and the same). MBAL cynically went along with this farrago, as tuc reminds us, for purely commercial reasons. In doing so they have set back a golden opportunity to reveal the VSO cover up standing in the way of UK Military AIr Safety reform. Ironic, given the lives saved by their products over more than three quarters of a century. All lost in a thrice. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy....
On the other hand, how DPP could single out MB, and only MB, to prosecute is a truly remarkable turn of events..........
As for the new evidence, it seems merely to further substantiate the conclusions which were already all too obvious to everyone, except apparently the DPP.
It is difficult to see how the family could go after anyone other than MB, who are the guilty party of record, and while this may yield a financial outcome, it would do nothing to address the underlying issues. A judicial review of the DPPs actions on the other hand.....?
...
My understanding is that the DPP had no part in the trial of MB.
In very simple terms, and within limits, certain organisations are empowered to bring their own prosecutions - including the HSE, RSPCA and the Post Office. Therein lies much of several contemporary problems.
LFH
My understanding is that the DPP had no part in the trial of MB.
In very simple terms, and within limits, certain organisations are empowered to bring their own prosecutions - including the HSE, RSPCA and the Post Office. Therein lies much of several contemporary problems.
LFH
Indeed, LFH, this prosecution was brought by HSE in the knowledge that the seat had been improperly serviced in situ, IAW an illegal servicing instruction. The RAF/MOD were fully aware of the MBAL servicing requirements and chose to ignore them. As to the Judiciary in general, and the judge in particular, the appointed judge, Sir Charles Haddon Cave, author of the Nimrod Review, chose to excuse himself pre trial. His replacement, Mrs Justice Carr,
f900:-
Really? If a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice was being played out before her very eyes, she was powerless to stop it? Was it not her duty not to let that happen? How about declaring a mistrial that would focus attention both on the prosecution and defendant? One or both of them might then have reconsidered their stance before playing out the same game before a third judge.
f900:-
doesn't seem to have been hoodwinked in any way, and her comments indicate that she fully understood what was going on, but was powerless to stop it.
It is difficult to see how the family could go after anyone other than MB, who are the guilty party of record, and while this may yield a financial outcome, it would do nothing to address the underlying issues. A judicial review of the DPPs actions on the other hand.....?
Then...? I don't know. A legal review, similar to the Nimrod and MoK Reviews? (Good examples, as the same evidence would be produced). It was asked before the trial if MB could call Haddon-Cave as a witness. I assume MB didn't want that, as they needed to get the case out of the way by a certain date. In any case, their specialist aviation legal firm had never heard of the Nimrod Review (!), so would take ages to get up to speed.
However, the police have an enduring duty to consider new or fresh evidence. Here, Lincs Police have refused, their Chief Constable ruling that unless directly affected by the alleged offence, one is 'not permitted' to lodge a complaint. This has been upheld by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive (the Prosecution). They are not required to take evidence from witnesses, and were permitted to ignore evidence disclosure rules. Like MoD, they are allowed to judge their own case.
At a more basic level, these things cost money; and it is normal for MoD to limit compensation to that of legal costs, subject to a Non-Disclosure Agreement. My guess is the family is not sitting on a pile of compo. And the firm that originally represented them now has a conflict of interest - something that also arose during the Mull of Kintyre case. Likewise, individuals and companies who would have been able to speak for MB at trial are under NDAs to the HSE.
OK, so the Judge had to accept that MB pleaded guilty, BUT , if because of evidence put before her suggested, clearly convinced her, from her statements, that some dishonesty was being peddled, why the fine of £1,000,000. Would not a fine of a nominal £1 been totally sufficient ?
No doubt the legal eagles will shoot down that argument, but I am utterly convinced that there is something rotten going on at MOD and RAF , and REAL justice has NOT been served.
…… and yes, I have read “ Their Greatest Disgrace” and I have just received the revised edition of Red 5.
No doubt the legal eagles will shoot down that argument, but I am utterly convinced that there is something rotten going on at MOD and RAF , and REAL justice has NOT been served.
…… and yes, I have read “ Their Greatest Disgrace” and I have just received the revised edition of Red 5.
Lincs Police have refused, their Chief Constable ruling that unless directly affected by the alleged offence, one is 'not permitted' to lodge a complaint. This has been upheld by the Independent Office for Police Conduct. Similarly, the Health and Safety Executive (the Prosecution).
"By this breach MBAL exposed each RAF pilot [and any passenger] flying a Hawk to a material risk."
She had to refer to Martin-Baker, so to aim the complaint at MoD you'd (e.g.) submit the fact that MoD declined to mitigate the risk in 1984 when the Gas Shackle was designed, and there was no safety case.
Bottom line is that this accident would never had happened if the RAF had maintained ejection seat bays. Prior to bay shutdown the shackle was always fitted/released by operating the barostatic release unit and opening the scissor shackle. This could not be done first line so a frig was devised.
dctyke The book makes that very point in Chapter 25. Seat bay closure was part of a 40% savings over a 21 month period, immediately following the 20% over 4 years that Hadden-Cave criticised. The author asks if the impact of the 20% was assessed before taking the 40%. An excellent question I thought.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no, there does not have to be an actual accident for an offence to be committed, the exposure to the hazard, risk or danger is an offence - depending of course on the exposure and degree of risk. It would be probably be compounded if the risk was not properly understood or communicated. HSE’s R2P2 explains all of this quite well.
Last edited by Mr N Nimrod; 10th Sep 2021 at 14:51.
no, there does not have to be an actual accident for an offence to be committed, the exposure to the hazard, risk or danger is an offence - depending of course on the exposure and degree of risk. It would be probably be compounded if the risk was not properly understood or communicated. HSE’s R2P2 explains all of this quite well.
(Here, we must differentiate between what the corporate MoD knew, and the carefully selected single witness who said he didn't understand - because he hadn't been trained. The HSE's case was that MB remained liable for providing this training, and compensating for MoD's cut-backs, even after their contract was cancelled in 1983).
In her remarks the Judge claimed she had not read this evidence, supplied by the public. But it was obvious from her remarks that she HAD read at least some of it. What she didn't explain was that the same evidence had been sent to her by the original Coroner, Stuart Fisher. I'm told by a QC that, while she did not have to read the public submissions, she did have to declare what she did read; and that she would be very unwise to ignore the Coroner, whose submission to her made it very clear he had been misled in 2014.