PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/619209-shoreham-airshow-crash-trial.html)

ORAC 8th Mar 2019 10:07

Shoreham Airshow Crash Trial
 
Andrew Hill has been found Not Guilty by the jury on all counts.

Above The Clouds 8th Mar 2019 10:11

That is very welcome news.

air pig 8th Mar 2019 10:18

Interesting result considering the past.

Onceapilot 8th Mar 2019 10:18

So, what did cause the accident? :uhoh:

OAP

Satellite_Driver 8th Mar 2019 10:19

This verdict does not of course preclude the families of those killed from bringing a civil claim for damages (although as with many such claims it would really be a claim against the insurers of Hill and the airshow, since both pilot and airshow presumably had public liability insurance.)

Finningley Boy 8th Mar 2019 10:19

It goes to show the validity of not compromising a trial with foregone conclusions. I think a lot of people were expecting it to be an open and shut case. However, when all is laid bare and argued through, many other facets appear!

FB

lightbluefootprint 8th Mar 2019 10:21

Interesting verdict as it seems to go against some thoughts about the accident flight and prior non-accident flights, is this a convenient verdict to underline the apparent knee-jerk reactions of the CAA?

MPN11 8th Mar 2019 10:27

An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.

wiggy 8th Mar 2019 10:30

As ABC has said this is very very welcome news.

Satellite_Driver 8th Mar 2019 10:34

I think it's important here to bear in mind what this means. This was a criminal trial, to the criminal standard of proof ('beyond reasonable doubt') and to the test used for gross negligence manslaughter, i.e. that the defendant was not just negligent but fell far below the standard expected of someone in his position. No doubt the judge will have directed the jury in terms similar to those approved by the Court of Appeal in the 2016 case R (on the application of Oliver) v Director of Public Prosecution:

"A proper direction to the jury on the issue of gross negligence was held in that case to be that they should be sure that the conduct in question was something ‘truly exceptionally bad and which showed a departure from the standard to be expected’ so as to constitute the very serious crime of manslaughter. The bar is thus set high: perhaps unsurprisingly so, given that such cases ordinarily involve no criminal intent."

An acquittal means that the jury were not satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the crash was caused by Hill's flying being so bad as to meet that test.

Arfur Dent 8th Mar 2019 10:34

12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying. What verdict did we expect? "Proof beyond reasonable doubt" can be a hard taskmaster. Have to agree with OAP - what caused a perfectly serviceable fighter aircraft to crash whilst carrying out low level aerobatic manoeuvres? After all the pilot had 40 hours on type which was enough for the CAA to grant a PDA. Phew!!

Treble one 8th Mar 2019 10:37

Whilst I'm not wishing any ill to Mr Hill (who has of course the consequences of this to live with for the rest of his days), I'm very surprised at the result based on the facts of the AAIB report. I think its good news for display pilots. I'd heard some dark rumours about the consequences of a guilty verdict in this case.

Cat Techie 8th Mar 2019 10:39

Beyond reasonable doubt. The Jury thought that it was not, so made their judgement accordingly. Civil actions, if they happen will be less restricted in this score.

rog747 8th Mar 2019 10:45

Shoreham Airshow pilot acquitted over crash deaths
 

Originally Posted by MPN11 (Post 10410307)
An interesting result, and not what I was expecting from what I've read here. I will be interested to see what detail emerges from the trial. Have to agree with OAP on this one, and I suspect there will be more action to come.

Don't believe then what you read on a rumour network with plenty of armchair lawyers, armchair QC's, plus armchair judges and jury !

The Court was not there to decide what caused the accident - That is the AAIB's job.

From BBC news-
Pilot Andrew Hill has been found not guilty of manslaughter over the Shoreham Airshow crash, in which 11 men died.
Mr Hill's ex-military Hawker Hunter jet crashed on to the A27 in Sussex on 22 August 2015.
The ex-RAF pilot denied deliberately committing to a loop manoeuvre despite flying too low and too slow.
Karim Khalil QC, defending, argued Mr Hill had been suffering from "cognitive impairment" when the jet crashed.
Mr Hill was also formally found not guilty of a count that was not put in front of the jury of negligently or recklessly endangering the safety of an aircraft.



The Coroner has to now decide on how the victims died and give her verdict.
She stated that a pre-inquest review into the 11 deaths following the Shoreham air crash due to take place on Monday 26 March 2018 has been postponed.
West Sussex Senior Coroner Penelope Schofield has taken the decision following the CPS decision to bring charges against the pilot. The Coroner set the next review for Friday 22 February 2019, to allow for the criminal proceedings but due to the nature of the charges, the full inquest must now await the conclusion of the criminal case. The Coroner has said she does not anticipate the full inquest will take place until mid to late 2019 and will continue to keep the matter under review to ensure that the inquests take place as soon as is reasonably possible.

wiggy 8th Mar 2019 10:47


Originally Posted by Arfur Dent (Post 10410317)
12 "Good men and True" who know nothing about display flying.

But also 12 “Good men and true” who were actually in court and heard all the evidence presented.....

weemonkey 8th Mar 2019 10:50

BBC reporting jury were told “that it must decide if the prosecution had proved cognitive impairment had not affected Mr Hill during the flight”

Of course the answer is 42.....

...(Hitchhikers guide reference to the question-the answer to everything)

Arfur Dent 8th Mar 2019 10:51

Point well made Wiggy…...

Timelord 8th Mar 2019 10:52

The whole premise of aviation safety is acknowledging that human beings make mistakes. This pilot undoubtedly did that, but if every mistake that led to a fatality was followed by criminal prosecution; what would that do to our hard won safety culture. I hold no brief for Mr Hill but I am happy with the result for the sake of every pilot, controller and engineer in the business. In my view the most worrying aspect of this accident was the display authorisation “process”.

Thoughtful_Flyer 8th Mar 2019 10:53


Originally Posted by Onceapilot (Post 10410296)
So, what did cause the accident? :uhoh:

OAP

You are completely missing the point!

Gross negligence was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt so he was, quite correctly, found not guilty.

Fitter2 8th Mar 2019 10:55

With respect to the BBC, the Defendant's barrister does not have to prove anything; only to introduce sufficient evidence that there is a possibility of something that undermines the prosecution.


All times are GMT. The time now is 19:21.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.