Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
I think it would be a good move for people to read the Misra case to which the coroner referred. Its not that difficult to understand for non-lawyers.
The key is in para 66 where the Court of Appeal said as follows:
"....The jury concluded that the conduct of each appellant in the course of performing his professional obligations to his patient was "truly exceptionally bad"...."
You can read it here https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57eb152b
The key is in para 66 where the Court of Appeal said as follows:
"....The jury concluded that the conduct of each appellant in the course of performing his professional obligations to his patient was "truly exceptionally bad"...."
You can read it here https://www.casemine.com/judgement/u...d03e7f57eb152b
No doubt lawyers, including coroners, may have to resort to studying case law to try and find what laypersons like myself might refer to as an analogy for the case they are considering.
However, I fail to see that the Misra case can be considered analogous to that of a lone display pilot, who has no more than a few seconds to identify any problem, consider whether an escape manoeuvre or other change of plan is required, and initiate it.
The following users liked this post:
"An open conclusion will be reached where there is not enough evidence to reach any other conclusion".
That might be thought appropriate, especially given the evidence the Coroner was restricted to.
She could also have said:
"Accident / Misadventure....
Where deaths are truly 'accidental' in the sense that neither the acts causing death nor the consequences of those acts were intended."
(Unless anyone is claiming the pilot intended what happened).
As for:
"Unlawful killing
A conclusion of unlawful killing can essentially be returned in two circumstances:
(i) as a result of an unlawful act, such as an assault or murder; or
(ii) through gross negligence manslaughter."
This refers to intent, and the "conduct of the individual will always be considered against the background of all the relevant circumstances....".
And 'Misra', cited by the Coroner, also says:
"Mistakes, even very serious mistakes, and errors of judgment, even very serious errors of judgment, and the like, are nowhere near enough for a crime as serious as manslaughter to be committed".
My interpretation (because it is not clear cut, and I'm no expert) is that Unlawful Killing is unsafe given the Coroner was not allowed to explore 'the background of all the relevant circumstances' which the AAIB report referred to. Primarily, the failings of others whom the pilot (and deceased) relied upon.
The following 5 users liked this post by tucumseh:
I agree with your take on this, tucumseh . This ticks all the boxes for "misadventure". A pilot that made non-deliberate errors. An aircraft with a dubious airworthiness status. Display planners that thought it was OK to display so close to a busy main road. Nothing I've read suggests a deliberate act by the pilot. Careless certainly, and opportunities to avoid the accident were missed. Carelessness runs right through this tragic accident from several parties though.
One thing we've learned many times is that carelessness and complacency go hand in hand. This accident proves this, yet again.
One thing we've learned many times is that carelessness and complacency go hand in hand. This accident proves this, yet again.
The problem is that although there may well have been many careless people only one was flying the aircraft that day. And as has been pointed out - he only got off by invoking a unique medical condition that, shall we be generous, has many people baffled.
The following users liked this post:
Many of us have seen this before. When there's a lack of discipline and sound leadership it's inevitable that complacency and carelessness result in safety standards dropping. Who here hasn't seen this happen? I have, for sure. In a very different environment. The case I remember is where the culture of "get the job done" meant that it had become "custom and practice" to ignore "inconvenient" safety procedures. This level of complacency had built up over years. No one really noticed it. Leadership by example was non-existent. The key thing was keep things running by fair means or foul. I have a strong feeling that this air show had fallen into the same trap. Been running for years and was the perfect breeding ground for complacent attitudes to set in across the board.
The following users liked this post:
As for whether the fateful action was 'intended', well of course he didn't intend to crash or kill people. But he did intend to fly the display while inadequately prepared (having not practised the requisite escape manoeuvre) and, excepting the remote possibility that he did so involuntarily while incapacitated, he did intend to continue the loop having entered low and apexed below gate height. Those actions alone might be judged to reach the balance of probabilities test for gross negligence manslaughter, and in that sense the Coroner had enough to reach her verdict.
I think you are probably right, but unless you were on the jury - who knows? They may have just thought that the prosecution case was weak and such a nice chap couldn't possibly be guilty...
Hill's failings can't be reduced to the single fateful mistake of continuing the loop. As has been recounted, he had made mistakes in previous displays and should have had some awareness of his own shortcomings of experience, training and currency as a result of them. He had days/weeks/months in which to realise that displaying a high performance swept wing aircraft in a confined site was not wise. The fact that regulations allowed him to reflects poorly indeed on the regulator, but it doesn't absolve Hill of primary responsibility.
As for whether the fateful action was 'intended', well of course he didn't intend to crash or kill people. But he did intend to fly the display while inadequately prepared (having not practised the requisite escape manoeuvre) and, excepting the remote possibility that he did so involuntarily while incapacitated, he did intend to continue the loop having entered low and apexed below gate height. Those actions alone might be judged to reach the balance of probabilities test for gross negligence manslaughter, and in that sense the Coroner had enough to reach her verdict.
As for whether the fateful action was 'intended', well of course he didn't intend to crash or kill people. But he did intend to fly the display while inadequately prepared (having not practised the requisite escape manoeuvre) and, excepting the remote possibility that he did so involuntarily while incapacitated, he did intend to continue the loop having entered low and apexed below gate height. Those actions alone might be judged to reach the balance of probabilities test for gross negligence manslaughter, and in that sense the Coroner had enough to reach her verdict.
"As a layperson, it seems to me that any proposal of gross negligence on the part of a pilot flying alone has to address the fact that (s)he is usually the party most likely to suffer any serious consequences. Therefore, I'm wondering if a finding of gross-negligence manslaughter can be applied in this case. Did the coroner have any evidence that Mr Hill made a deliberate attempt to impact the public road, rather than open spaces nearby?"
If not, the fact that Mr Hill was the most likely victim of his own mistake surely distinguishes his culpability from that of the two clinicians in the so-called Misra case.
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'. Aviation history is littered with examples of pilots who have died due to their own grossly negligent flying, so the self-preservation argument is of no value.
The following users liked this post:
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'. Aviation history is littered with examples of pilots who have died due to their own grossly negligent flying, so the self-preservation argument is of no value.
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'. Aviation history is littered with examples of pilots who have died due to their own grossly negligent flying, so the self-preservation argument is of no value.
Based on that definition, the Coroner's ruling is that the pilot made a conscious decision to fly the entire manouevre as he did. I wonder if the pilot would have accepted 'negligence'? That huge leap to 'gross negligence' forced a court case, and a defence which the prosecution couldn't refute.
It is seldom if ever mentioned that the Judge directed the jury on several points of evidence, specifically factual errors in the prosecution case. It wasn't a simple 'CI or not CI' question. Even if the CI defence had not been advanced, it is likely the same verdict would have been reached, as fundamental errors by the prosecution, and failure to disclose evidence, tends not to sit well when the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Moreover, the pilot's acceptance of his error, and refusal to blame others, despite their CONSCIOUS acts of commission and omission, clearly went down well with the Judge.
Cognitive Impairment is not a 'unique medical condition'. Most people here should know that, if only from MoD advancing it in the Sean Cunningham case, both in the SI report and in court. The difference being, at Shoreham there was no claim it was self-induced.
The following users liked this post:
There is a distinction between negligence and gross negligence. Negligence is commonly defined as ‘the inadvertent taking of an unjustifiable risk’. Whereas, gross negligence is ‘a conscious act or omission in disregard of a legal duty and of the consequences to another party’. (Ormerod D. Smith 8 Hogan’s Criminal Law (11th edition)). In other words, degree relates to appreciation of the risks involved, together with serious disregard or indifference to an obvious risk. The outcome (in this case death) is not a factor in determining degree.
Based on that definition, the Coroner's ruling is that the pilot made a conscious decision to fly the entire manouevre as he did. I wonder if the pilot would have accepted 'negligence'? That huge leap to 'gross negligence' forced a court case, and a defence which the prosecution couldn't refute.
It is seldom if ever mentioned that the Judge directed the jury on several points of evidence, specifically factual errors in the prosecution case. It wasn't a simple 'CI or not CI' question. Even if the CI defence had not been advanced, it is likely the same verdict would have been reached, as fundamental errors by the prosecution, and failure to disclose evidence, tends not to sit well when the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Moreover, the pilot's acceptance of his error, and refusal to blame others, despite their CONSCIOUS acts of commission and omission, clearly went down well with the Judge.
Cognitive Impairment is not a 'unique medical condition'. Most people here should know that, if only from MoD advancing it in the Sean Cunningham case, both in the SI report and in court. The difference being, at Shoreham there was no claim it was self-induced.
Based on that definition, the Coroner's ruling is that the pilot made a conscious decision to fly the entire manouevre as he did. I wonder if the pilot would have accepted 'negligence'? That huge leap to 'gross negligence' forced a court case, and a defence which the prosecution couldn't refute.
It is seldom if ever mentioned that the Judge directed the jury on several points of evidence, specifically factual errors in the prosecution case. It wasn't a simple 'CI or not CI' question. Even if the CI defence had not been advanced, it is likely the same verdict would have been reached, as fundamental errors by the prosecution, and failure to disclose evidence, tends not to sit well when the test is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. Moreover, the pilot's acceptance of his error, and refusal to blame others, despite their CONSCIOUS acts of commission and omission, clearly went down well with the Judge.
Cognitive Impairment is not a 'unique medical condition'. Most people here should know that, if only from MoD advancing it in the Sean Cunningham case, both in the SI report and in court. The difference being, at Shoreham there was no claim it was self-induced.
The following users liked this post:
I don't understand where you're trying to go with that. Are you saying that Hill couldn't possibly be grossly negligent, because he was the one most likely to die if he crashed? That would fall down because negligent acts don't have to be intended: the legal definition of negligence is essentially 'failure to take proper care'.
Bear in mind also that in the criminal trial gross negligence manslaughter was exactly what the pilot was indicted for, albeit the jury didn't agree that the prosecution had proved their case beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. to the standard of proof required in a criminal court.
The two have never, as far as I know, been directly linked by anyone. You could say that training and authorisation to conduct the flight are related matters, as the safety of the air system as a whole would be affected. There will be criteria to satisfy in order to be authorised, which a pilot could better explain.
The conduct of the medical clinicians in that case took place during a period of over 24 hours, during which they were able to confer with fellow doctors and the nursing staff who had first alerted one of them to concerning abnormalities in the patient's condition. Between them, they made a series of errors of omission.
No doubt lawyers, including coroners, may have to resort to studying case law to try and find what laypersons like myself might refer to as an analogy for the case they are considering.
However, I fail to see that the Misra case can be considered analogous to that of a lone display pilot, who has no more than a few seconds to identify any problem, consider whether an escape manoeuvre or other change of plan is required, and initiate it.
No doubt lawyers, including coroners, may have to resort to studying case law to try and find what laypersons like myself might refer to as an analogy for the case they are considering.
However, I fail to see that the Misra case can be considered analogous to that of a lone display pilot, who has no more than a few seconds to identify any problem, consider whether an escape manoeuvre or other change of plan is required, and initiate it.
In this case the Coroner, asking herself the same question (as the law requires her to do), took the view that the pilot's actions or failures were, viewed objectively, truly exceptionally bad and concluded they were.
What you are doing is saying in your view they weren't which is fine; an opinion which you are of course entitled to hold. The Coroner, having heard and read all the evidence took a different view.
The irony of course is that it could be said that the pilot's legal advisors didn't disagree that the pilot's standard of flying was truly exceptionally bad and indeed used that categorization as evidence that other factors must have been in play: hence cognitive impairment.
All that said, I will be intrigued to see the what the grounds for the judicial review, or whatever it is now called, As they nailed their colours to the CI mast, I don't see how they can now argue that that the coroner got it wrong on how to judge the standard of their client's actions or failures.
Thanks for the clarification, Raikum. And in particular your closing observation:
"The irony of course is that it could be said that the pilot's legal advisors didn't disagree that the pilot's standard of flying was truly exceptionally bad and indeed used that categorization as evidence that other factors must have been in play: hence cognitive impairment.
All that said, I will be intrigued to see the what the grounds for the judicial review, or whatever it is now called, As they nailed their colours to the CI mast, I don't see how they can now argue that that the coroner got it wrong on how to judge the standard of their client's actions or failures."
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.
"The irony of course is that it could be said that the pilot's legal advisors didn't disagree that the pilot's standard of flying was truly exceptionally bad and indeed used that categorization as evidence that other factors must have been in play: hence cognitive impairment.
All that said, I will be intrigued to see the what the grounds for the judicial review, or whatever it is now called, As they nailed their colours to the CI mast, I don't see how they can now argue that that the coroner got it wrong on how to judge the standard of their client's actions or failures."
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.
I did suggest that the discussion would develop into really interesting legal debate. It clearly has. David Reid asks what other conclusions might have been available to the Judge/coroner. Dunno. Not a Lawyer but no need for a reply as lots of posters offered answers.
I struggle with legal definition of stuff ,like,"Unlawful killing". Is that opposed to "Lawful killing" ? Tuc gives a suggestion that gross negligence can be tied to unlawful events.
It gets very involved in professional jargon but I stand by my view that HIll did not set out to kill himself or any innocent bystanders.Very tragic consequences , accidental, in my view, to a series of errors.
I struggle with legal definition of stuff ,like,"Unlawful killing". Is that opposed to "Lawful killing" ? Tuc gives a suggestion that gross negligence can be tied to unlawful events.
It gets very involved in professional jargon but I stand by my view that HIll did not set out to kill himself or any innocent bystanders.Very tragic consequences , accidental, in my view, to a series of errors.
Thread titles, on this forum at least, tend not to survive thread content, and later events and developments cause the discussion to move on. Thread drift perhaps, but tolerated by our esteemed mods and no more apparent than in that most celebrated thread of all, and now a sticky, that of obtaining an RAF Pilots Brevet in WWII. This one though seems obstinately to be obsessed with the trial that is the OP subject. I know little about legal process other than it be arcane and unpredictable but trying to rerun it in these pages seems to me to be bordering on the pointless.
The tragedy of Shoreham must never be repeated. There at least we are surely all in agreement. Aviation has a history of far too many fatal accidents, but each one is an opportunity to learn from in order to avoid repetition. There are many lessons to be learnt from Shoreham and professional aviators need to consider them all. Once again we find that many of the factors involved were not 'discovered' in the air accident investigation and it has fallen on others to expose them and seek formal consideration. That the 'authorities' seem reluctant to do so says more about our national institutions than it does about proper air accident investigation. The glaring shortfall on this occasion is a classic one, that of the relationship between Air Regulator and Accident Investigator. If ever there were proof of the necessity of a complete separation and independence of the two then it is here. Instead of hints and nudges of problems there needs to be outright condemnation of any regulatory negligence. It has been the curse of UK Military Aviation for over thirty years. It must not be allowed to infect our civil aviation as well.
The elephant in the room here isn't pilot CI, or even what he ate for breakfast. It is the fact that he was flying an ex-military FJ that was already unairworthy when it received its permit to fly and remained so until it crashed alongside the A27. Just as with Mull, the worst military example of this syndrome, we don't know if the lack of airworthiness caused the tragedy because, just like Mull, no-one felt disposed to seriously consider that. I find that to be the glaring omission in the subsequent investigations by the AAIB, the High Court, and the Coroner. That is a scandal in my view and will encourage repetition if not corrected.
The tragedy of Shoreham must never be repeated. There at least we are surely all in agreement. Aviation has a history of far too many fatal accidents, but each one is an opportunity to learn from in order to avoid repetition. There are many lessons to be learnt from Shoreham and professional aviators need to consider them all. Once again we find that many of the factors involved were not 'discovered' in the air accident investigation and it has fallen on others to expose them and seek formal consideration. That the 'authorities' seem reluctant to do so says more about our national institutions than it does about proper air accident investigation. The glaring shortfall on this occasion is a classic one, that of the relationship between Air Regulator and Accident Investigator. If ever there were proof of the necessity of a complete separation and independence of the two then it is here. Instead of hints and nudges of problems there needs to be outright condemnation of any regulatory negligence. It has been the curse of UK Military Aviation for over thirty years. It must not be allowed to infect our civil aviation as well.
The elephant in the room here isn't pilot CI, or even what he ate for breakfast. It is the fact that he was flying an ex-military FJ that was already unairworthy when it received its permit to fly and remained so until it crashed alongside the A27. Just as with Mull, the worst military example of this syndrome, we don't know if the lack of airworthiness caused the tragedy because, just like Mull, no-one felt disposed to seriously consider that. I find that to be the glaring omission in the subsequent investigations by the AAIB, the High Court, and the Coroner. That is a scandal in my view and will encourage repetition if not corrected.
"What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless."
Sorry my fault for sure but I'm not sure I quite understand the point you're making.. I should make it clear that I haven't read any of the transcripts, the AAIB report or anything else in any detail so I'm reluctant to comment on the facts of this ghastly affair. What does seem clear though is that the pilot messed up big time; hence the test 'truly exceptionally bad'. And sure he put his own neck on the line much like a driver indicted for the same offense but that, as per the facts in Misra,, is an irrelevance for a conviction.
I should add that though I was a lawyer in a past life (now gladly retired !), I never was involved in criminal cases so my knowledge is somewhat limited. Ironically though I was involved in a depressingly large number of medical negligence cases and one or two quite high profile aircraft accident cases.
Sorry my fault for sure but I'm not sure I quite understand the point you're making.. I should make it clear that I haven't read any of the transcripts, the AAIB report or anything else in any detail so I'm reluctant to comment on the facts of this ghastly affair. What does seem clear though is that the pilot messed up big time; hence the test 'truly exceptionally bad'. And sure he put his own neck on the line much like a driver indicted for the same offense but that, as per the facts in Misra,, is an irrelevance for a conviction.
I should add that though I was a lawyer in a past life (now gladly retired !), I never was involved in criminal cases so my knowledge is somewhat limited. Ironically though I was involved in a depressingly large number of medical negligence cases and one or two quite high profile aircraft accident cases.
What about the manslaughter element of "gross-negligence manslaughter"? Does my argument above have any legal merit? If not, I suspect it would resonate with many lay people, nevertheless.