Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I learned one thing from my jury service it is that I don't ever want to be tried by a jury. The thought that my life could be decided by any of the juries that I sat on is frankly terrifying.
Even more chilling...I have a cousin-in-law who is a prominent QC. Try telling someone like that, that juries decisions are frankly random and arbitrary on far too many occasions.
PS 15 in Scotland.
a prominent QC. Try telling someone like that, that juries decisions are frankly random and arbitrary on far too many occasions.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Dark Side of West Wales
Age: 85
Posts: 161
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the subject of juries or as an alternative a panel of knowledgeable people. I sat through a Courts Marshal back in the late '50's which was full of technical issues but not much controversial evidence. When the verdict was announced many of us could not believe our ears. We were fully expecting a guilty verdict with an accompanying harsh punishment but instead it was a not guilty. Afterwards when I asked one of the defence team how this had come about the reply was Triple "B" or to give it its full term "Bullsh*t Baffles Brains. A common term in use in those days!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most lawyers are well aware of that - they say you can't predict what a jury will do.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/1777...lays-distress/
Eleven men were killed when pilot Andrew Hill crashed a Hawker Hunter on to the A27 next to Lancing College on August 22,2015. But families will have to wait for a second Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) investigation to be published around the time of the 4th anniversary and until next year at least before an inquest will be held.
During a hearing yesterday West Sussex senior Coroner Penelope Schofield criticised delays and said the AAIB’s intention to re-investigate - which could jeopardise any inquest - was only brought to light on Friday. The AAIB may decide to assess whether cognitive impairment was a factor in the tragedy - a key feature of Mr Hill’s defence during his criminal trial last year.......
The coroner scheduled another preliminary hearing for November 29. She said a decision about whether a jury will be used would also be made after the AAIB’s decision, which is expected to become clear in August.........
Shoreham families suffer delays distress
FAMILIES of the Shoreham Airshow crash victims are being caused “unnecessary distress”, a coroner has said.Eleven men were killed when pilot Andrew Hill crashed a Hawker Hunter on to the A27 next to Lancing College on August 22,2015. But families will have to wait for a second Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) investigation to be published around the time of the 4th anniversary and until next year at least before an inquest will be held.
During a hearing yesterday West Sussex senior Coroner Penelope Schofield criticised delays and said the AAIB’s intention to re-investigate - which could jeopardise any inquest - was only brought to light on Friday. The AAIB may decide to assess whether cognitive impairment was a factor in the tragedy - a key feature of Mr Hill’s defence during his criminal trial last year.......
The coroner scheduled another preliminary hearing for November 29. She said a decision about whether a jury will be used would also be made after the AAIB’s decision, which is expected to become clear in August.........
The AAIB may decide to assess whether cognitive impairment was a factor in the tragedy - a key feature of Mr Hill’s defence during his criminal trial last year.
I don't know, but according to an article on page 42 of the latest Private Eye (#1501) it's...
"...the crash pilot [that] has now asked the AAIB to reopen its inquiry.
"Only days before West Sussex coroner Penelope Schofield was expected to set an inquest date, lawyers acting for the AAIB told her that investigators had been asked to reconsider their original finding that the crash had been the result of pilot error.
"Andy Hill [...] had asked the AAIB to look again at the case after he was found not guilty of 11 manslaughter charges at the Old Bailey earlier this year. He was cleared by a jury after arguing that the g-forces [sic] he experienced during the flight had caused a cognitive impairment -- not a factor originally considered by air investigators..."
"...the crash pilot [that] has now asked the AAIB to reopen its inquiry.
"Only days before West Sussex coroner Penelope Schofield was expected to set an inquest date, lawyers acting for the AAIB told her that investigators had been asked to reconsider their original finding that the crash had been the result of pilot error.
"Andy Hill [...] had asked the AAIB to look again at the case after he was found not guilty of 11 manslaughter charges at the Old Bailey earlier this year. He was cleared by a jury after arguing that the g-forces [sic] he experienced during the flight had caused a cognitive impairment -- not a factor originally considered by air investigators..."
Time to shut down all the enquiries and hold the Inquest - you can see this dragging on like the N Ireland stuff for decades to the delight of the lawyers
I don't know, but according to an article on page 42 of the latest Private Eye (#1501) it's...
"...the crash pilot [that] has now asked the AAIB to reopen its inquiry.
"Only days before West Sussex coroner Penelope Schofield was expected to set an inquest date, lawyers acting for the AAIB told her that investigators had been asked to reconsider their original finding that the crash had been the result of pilot error.
"Andy Hill [...] had asked the AAIB to look again at the case after he was found not guilty of 11 manslaughter charges at the Old Bailey earlier this year. He was cleared by a jury after arguing that the g-forces [sic] he experienced during the flight had caused a cognitive impairment -- not a factor originally considered by air investigators..."
"...the crash pilot [that] has now asked the AAIB to reopen its inquiry.
"Only days before West Sussex coroner Penelope Schofield was expected to set an inquest date, lawyers acting for the AAIB told her that investigators had been asked to reconsider their original finding that the crash had been the result of pilot error.
"Andy Hill [...] had asked the AAIB to look again at the case after he was found not guilty of 11 manslaughter charges at the Old Bailey earlier this year. He was cleared by a jury after arguing that the g-forces [sic] he experienced during the flight had caused a cognitive impairment -- not a factor originally considered by air investigators..."
The pilot was acquitted largely because the prosecution were unable to prove that he had NOT suffered a Cognitive Impairment during the manoeuvre. Basically they couldn't prove that he didn't suffer something that its impossible to prove (there is no known test).
Should he just accept that he is a free man, and not cause even more misery to those who are left behind and are suffering?
Quote:
a prominent QC. Try telling someone like that, that juries decisions are frankly random and arbitrary on far too many occasions.
I think most lawyers are well aware of that - they say you can't predict what a jury will do.
a prominent QC. Try telling someone like that, that juries decisions are frankly random and arbitrary on far too many occasions.
I think most lawyers are well aware of that - they say you can't predict what a jury will do.
Is what's being suggested (petitioning the AAIB to reopen an inquiry) even possible, or has the Eye got its wires crossed?
Treble One - you ask if anyone finds this a little distasteful, and you suggest that Andy Hill should just keep quiet.
I wonder if you were in court for the 8-week manslaughter trial. Experts there demonstrated that something unusual and, so far largely inexplicable, happened. The jury of eleven people took most of a day to consider their verdict, and were unanimous in their ‘not guilty’ verdict. They had considered a lot of complex evidence, which had taken the judge two days to sum up.
As you say, all the defence had to do was show that the prosecution had failed to prove that cognitive impairment did not occur. But, as the defence QC said in his opening remarks, the defence could, and did, go much further.
More relevant to this debate is that much of the expert evidence, both prosecution and defence, was in conflict with the AAIB report.
Private Eye (of which I’m a huge fan) is wrong in one respect. The defence adduced a cascade of errors, starting at a specific time and position, which could only be explained by some form of, so far unspecified, cognitive impairment. G-forces were only one potential cause, whether total or partial.
A glance at The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/18/made
will show, under Reopening of safety investigation
I don’t think (3) applies. (1) and (2) are clear that the only person who can decide is the Chief Inspector, and (1) relies on ‘new and significant’ evidence. I suggest that the evidence from the trial is clearly ‘new and significant’. Are you, Treble One, suggesting it should be ignored?
As far as I’m concerned, having sat through most of the trial, there was evidence, presented by both sides, that left the AAIB report unsupportable. So I, for one, am not surprised that the AAIB are considering reopening.
airsound
I wonder if you were in court for the 8-week manslaughter trial. Experts there demonstrated that something unusual and, so far largely inexplicable, happened. The jury of eleven people took most of a day to consider their verdict, and were unanimous in their ‘not guilty’ verdict. They had considered a lot of complex evidence, which had taken the judge two days to sum up.
As you say, all the defence had to do was show that the prosecution had failed to prove that cognitive impairment did not occur. But, as the defence QC said in his opening remarks, the defence could, and did, go much further.
More relevant to this debate is that much of the expert evidence, both prosecution and defence, was in conflict with the AAIB report.
Private Eye (of which I’m a huge fan) is wrong in one respect. The defence adduced a cascade of errors, starting at a specific time and position, which could only be explained by some form of, so far unspecified, cognitive impairment. G-forces were only one potential cause, whether total or partial.
A glance at The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/...lation/18/made
will show, under Reopening of safety investigation
18.—(1) Subject to paragraph (3), where, following publication of a final safety investigation report relating to an accident or serious incident, evidence has become available which, in the Chief Inspector’s opinion, is new and significant, the Chief Inspector must cause the safety investigation to be reopened.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), following publication of a final safety investigation report relating to an accident or serious incident, the Chief Inspector may cause the safety investigation to be reopened for any other reason where the Chief Inspector considers it appropriate to do so.
(3) The Chief Inspector must not reopen a safety investigation into an accident or serious incident in respect of which the task of conducting the safety investigation has been delegated to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, ….. without first obtaining the consent of the head of the investigation authority which so delegated that task.
(2) Subject to paragraph (3), following publication of a final safety investigation report relating to an accident or serious incident, the Chief Inspector may cause the safety investigation to be reopened for any other reason where the Chief Inspector considers it appropriate to do so.
(3) The Chief Inspector must not reopen a safety investigation into an accident or serious incident in respect of which the task of conducting the safety investigation has been delegated to the Air Accidents Investigation Branch, ….. without first obtaining the consent of the head of the investigation authority which so delegated that task.
As far as I’m concerned, having sat through most of the trial, there was evidence, presented by both sides, that left the AAIB report unsupportable. So I, for one, am not surprised that the AAIB are considering reopening.
airsound
Thanks for your informative post Airsound. I still remain in the belief that AH should let this lie.
He has answered his charges in court, he has been acquitted fair and square under the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement. I personally think his legal team played a blinder by introducing CI as a possible reason that the accident occurred, knowing that the prosecution were unable to prove it had, or hadn't.
Whether someome considers that this 'new evidence' (i.e. he MAY have suffered CI-remember there is no way to prove he did) is enough to reopen the AAIB report, then I don't know.
Perhaps though letting sleeping dogs lie wont necessitate questions like 'when did this potential CI incident occur'
Was it before he was too slow and too low entering the manoeuvre?
Was it before he failed to rech his gate height?
Was it before he failed to recognise this and failed to abandon the manoeuvre?
Or was it just before his jet hit the ground (whilst he appeared to be pulling for all he was worth)?
I have no axe to grind with Mr Hill. I know no-one affected either directly or indirectly with the incident. I'm not a pilot, (I do have a degree in biology). To me there seems to have been a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses lining up at the most unfortunate of times to come to the conclusion that CI was a potential causal factor in this accident, in a pilot who had not shown any signs or symptoms of such an in a long military, civilian and display flying career. he has also, of course, been through considerable physical and mental trauma due to this whole incident.
So thats why I'd move on.
He has answered his charges in court, he has been acquitted fair and square under the 'beyond reasonable doubt' requirement. I personally think his legal team played a blinder by introducing CI as a possible reason that the accident occurred, knowing that the prosecution were unable to prove it had, or hadn't.
Whether someome considers that this 'new evidence' (i.e. he MAY have suffered CI-remember there is no way to prove he did) is enough to reopen the AAIB report, then I don't know.
Perhaps though letting sleeping dogs lie wont necessitate questions like 'when did this potential CI incident occur'
Was it before he was too slow and too low entering the manoeuvre?
Was it before he failed to rech his gate height?
Was it before he failed to recognise this and failed to abandon the manoeuvre?
Or was it just before his jet hit the ground (whilst he appeared to be pulling for all he was worth)?
I have no axe to grind with Mr Hill. I know no-one affected either directly or indirectly with the incident. I'm not a pilot, (I do have a degree in biology). To me there seems to have been a lot of holes in a lot of cheeses lining up at the most unfortunate of times to come to the conclusion that CI was a potential causal factor in this accident, in a pilot who had not shown any signs or symptoms of such an in a long military, civilian and display flying career. he has also, of course, been through considerable physical and mental trauma due to this whole incident.
So thats why I'd move on.
One imagines that the CAA and MAA have commissioned urgent research into cognitive impairment. Unless sufficient understanding of the condition can be gained for it to be screened for by aviation medical examiners or recognised at onset by pilots, a further tightening of display flying regulations to mitigate a risk of unknown probability and catastrophic impact would appear to be the logical outcome of AH’s line of argument. Unintended consequences...
Surely the issue is that IF evidence led in the trial contradicts or challenges the AAIB report, this needs to be bottomed out?
Quite a big "if", and I have only heard Airsound suggesting it, but there can be no mileage in leaving any ambiguity where it can be avoided.
Quite a big "if", and I have only heard Airsound suggesting it, but there can be no mileage in leaving any ambiguity where it can be avoided.
Surely the issue is that IF evidence led in the trial contradicts or challenges the AAIB report, this needs to be bottomed out?
Quite a big "if", and I have only heard Airsound suggesting it, but there can be no mileage in leaving any ambiguity where it can be avoided.
Quite a big "if", and I have only heard Airsound suggesting it, but there can be no mileage in leaving any ambiguity where it can be avoided.
Pointless - until his lawyer turned up no -one mentioned it & sold it to the jury
I think everyone who has followed the case has made up their minds and this is just another awful waste of public funds that will enrich the lawyers and defer closure for the families