HER MAJESTY’S SENIOR CORONER FOR WEST SUSSEX v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SUSSEX POLICE

HER MAJESTY’S SENIOR CORONER FOR WEST SUSSEX v CHIEF CONSTABLE OF SUSSEX POLICE

There is no credible evidence that the AAIB investigation into the Shoreham air crash was incomplete, flawed or deficient. Dr Mitchell’s paper does not amount to credible evidence or suggestion, as he lacks relevant expertise. Disclosure of the protected material would have a significant adverse impact on future safety investigations and international cooperation, and there is no public interest benefit to outweigh this harm. The application for disclosure is therefore refused.

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 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
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Protected Material, Inquests, Air Accident Investigation, Regulation 25 Civil Aviation (investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018, Article 14 EU Regulation No 996/2010, Annex 13 Chicago Convention
Aviation Law Coronial Law Administrative Law Disclosure of Protected Material Inquests Air Accident Investigation Regulation 25 Civil Aviation (investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 2018 Article 14 EU Regulation No 996/2010 +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 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 Robert Henry Jack Schilt and Caroline Louise Schilt

Interested Parties

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Coroner should be granted access to protected cockpit video footage and related materials for the purposes of the inquests
  2. 2 Whether the benefits of disclosure outweigh the adverse domestic and international impact on safety investigations
  3. 3 Whether there is credible evidence that the AAIB investigation was incomplete, flawed or deficient

Ratio Decidendi

There is no credible evidence that the AAIB investigation into the Shoreham air crash was incomplete, flawed or deficient. Dr Mitchell’s paper does not amount to credible evidence or suggestion, as he lacks relevant expertise. Disclosure of the protected material would have a significant adverse impact on future safety investigations and international cooperation, and there is no public interest benefit to outweigh this harm. The application for disclosure is therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed