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 cockpit video footage and related materials are protected under the relevant aviation law framework. The Coroner has not presented credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient; Dr Mitchell's paper does not meet the threshold of credible evidence due to lack of relevant expertise and independence. The balancing test under Regulation 25 is not met: the benefits of disclosure do not outweigh the adverse impact on the integrity of air accident investigations. Therefore, disclosure is refused.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 215 (QB)
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 Parties: Sue and Philip Grimstone; Interested Parties: Jonathan Smith and Julie Smith; Interested Parties: Robert Henry Jack Schilt and Caroline Louise Schilt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (judicial Review/disclosure Application) / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Protected Material, Inquest Procedure, Balancing Test for Disclosure, International Aviation Safety Regulation, Judicial Review of Coroner's Powers
Aviation Law Coronial Law Public Law Disclosure of Protected Material Inquest Procedure Balancing Test for Disclosure International Aviation Safety Regulation Judicial Review of Coroner's Powers

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 4 Authorities cited 11 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 Parties

Jonathan Smith and Julie Smith

Interested Parties

Robert Henry Jack Schilt and Caroline Louise Schilt

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (judicial Review/disclosure Application) / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cockpit video footage and related materials are protected from disclosure under aviation law
  2. 2 Whether the Coroner is entitled to disclosure of protected material for the purposes of inquests
  3. 3 Whether Dr Mitchell's paper constitutes credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient

Ratio Decidendi

The cockpit video footage and related materials are protected under the relevant aviation law framework. The Coroner has not presented credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient; Dr Mitchell's paper does not meet the threshold of credible evidence due to lack of relevant expertise and independence. The balancing test under Regulation 25 is not met: the benefits of disclosure do not outweigh the adverse impact on the integrity of air accident investigations. Therefore, disclosure is refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Disclosure of cockpit video footage and related materials to the Coroner is refused.
  • The Chief Constable's application for retrospective permission to retain the footage is disposed of by consent order.