HM Senior Coroner for West Sussex v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Ors [2022] EWHC 215 (QB) (04 February 2022)

HM Senior Coroner for West Sussex v Chief Constable of Sussex Police & Ors [2022] EWHC 215 (QB) (04 February 2022)

The Court held that the cockpit video footage and related materials are protected under the relevant aviation safety regulations and may only be disclosed if the statutory balancing test is met. The Court found that Dr Mitchell's paper does not amount to credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient. Therefore, the high threshold for disclosure was not met, and the application for disclosure was refused.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 215
Parties
Claimant: Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for West Sussex; First Defendant: Chief Constable of Sussex Police; Second Defendant: Secretary of State for Transport; Third Defendant: Mr Andrew Hill; Interested Party: Sue and Philip Grimstone; Interested Party: Jonathan Smith and Julie Smith; Interested Party: Robert Henry Jack Schilt and Caroline Louise Schilt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Disclosure of Protected Material for Inquests
Outcome
Application for disclosure refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Protected Material, Inquest Procedure, Balancing Test for Disclosure, International Aviation Safety Regulations
Aviation Law Coronial Law Public Law Disclosure of Protected Material Inquest Procedure Balancing Test for Disclosure International Aviation Safety Regulations

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for West Sussex

Claimant

Chief Constable of Sussex Police

First Defendant

Secretary of State for Transport

Second Defendant

Mr Andrew Hill

Third Defendant

Sue and Philip Grimstone

Interested Party

Jonathan Smith and Julie Smith

Interested Party

Robert Henry Jack Schilt and Caroline Louise Schilt

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Judgment on Application for Disclosure of Protected Material for Inquests

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cockpit video footage and related materials are protected under aviation safety regulations
  2. 2 Whether the High Court should order disclosure of protected material to the Coroner for the inquests
  3. 3 Whether Dr Mitchell's paper constitutes credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the cockpit video footage and related materials are protected under the relevant aviation safety regulations and may only be disclosed if the statutory balancing test is met. The Court found that Dr Mitchell's paper does not amount to credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient. Therefore, the high threshold for disclosure was not met, and the application for disclosure was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for disclosure refused

Orders

  • No order for disclosure of protected material to the Coroner
  • Police to retain footage only pending completion of proceedings, as per agreed order