§ Lord Jacobsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Regarding the inquiry into the crash of a Chinook helicopter on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994: (a) who legally represented the deceased pilots, and, if no one, why; (b) what standard of proof was required under Royal Air Force rules, and whether this was higher or lower than in a British criminal court; and (c) if the enquiry were to be re-opened under current rules, whether the deceased pilots could be found guilty of gross negligence, and, if not, why not. [HL2685]
§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)(a) The relevant procedures for RAF Boards of Inquiry at the time of the accident on the Mull of Kintyre in June 1994 provided no right of representation on behalf of deceased aircrew.
29WA(b) A RAF Board of Inquiry at that time was primarily intended to identify the cause of an accident and was not directly comparable to a British criminal court. However, where the cause was found to be human error, the board was also required to assess such failings. The RAF Flight Safety Manual (AP3207) stated that the finding of negligence must only be made where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever.
(c) One of the conclusions of a review of Board of Inquiry procedures in 1997 was that such inquiries should no longer attribute blame in reporting the causes of accidents. This conclusion has now been put into effect. The terms under which the inquiry may be re-opened, in the event that new evidence came to light which justified that course, would need to be considered at that time.