Families of Chinook crash victims press on with legal action against MoD

South Wales Guardian

13 hours ago

RAF Chinook ZD576 was carrying 25 British intelligence personnel from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George near Inverness when it crashed in foggy weather on June 2 1994 on the Mull of Kintyre.
All 25 passengers – made up of personnel from MI5, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the British Army – were killed, along with the helicopter's four crew members.
The families launched legal action in a 'letter before action' to the UK Government sent earlier this month on the 31st anniversary of the crash.
They said they will now pursue a judicial review after the MoD responded and rejected their demands for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the crash, and for access to files which have been sealed for 100 years.
Nicola Rawcliffe, whose brother Major Christopher Dockerty was killed in the crash aged 33, said: 'I am furious and disgusted with the MoD's decision to summarily dismiss our claim.
'The MoD is continuing to deceive our families and disrespect our loved ones' memories by claiming that the many previous inquiries investigated all the facts, but we now know the aircraft was not airworthy. They didn't know half of what we know now.
'The Government may have sealed the files for 100 years, but we, the families of those who died, are firmly united, strong and defiant, and we will get to the truth, no matter what it takes.'
Following the crash, the Chinook's pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, were accused of gross negligence, but this verdict was overturned by the UK government 17 years later following a campaign by the families.
A subsequent review by Lord Philip set out 'numerous concerns' raised by those who worked on the Chinooks, with the MoD's testing centre at Boscombe Down in Wiltshire declaring the Chinook Mk2 helicopters 'unairworthy' prior to the crash.
The MoD said the crash was a 'tragic accident' and while its sympathies remain with the families and friends of the victims, there have been several investigations and inquiries and it believes it is unlikely another would reach any new conclusions.
Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father Lieutenant Colonel John Tobias, 41, was killed, said: 'My childhood was stolen from me because someone decided my dad and his colleagues should be put on a helicopter that was not fit for purpose.
'My mum, my brother, I and all the families deserve the truth and the MoD must repay the honour and integrity that those on board had shown in their years of service to their country. That's why we formed the Chinook Justice Campaign and we will not rest until we get the truth. If that takes a judge to rule in court, then so be it.'
The families, who have coalesced into the Chinook Justice Campaign, said failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the UK Government's human rights obligations.
Solicitor Mark Stephens, from law firm Howard Kennedy, said: 'This decision by the MoD to dismiss our claim is an unforgivable betrayal of service people who gave their lives for their country and an undisguised slap in the face for their long-suffering and bereaved families.
'So much for the Government's so-called commitment to duty of candour.
'We will now seek a judicial review into the Ministry of Defence's decision to deny the families truth, transparency and justice.'
An MoD spokesperson said: 'The Mull of Kintyre crash was a tragic accident, and our thoughts and sympathies remain with the families, friends and colleagues of all those who died.
'We understand that the lack of certainty about the cause of the crash has added to the distress of the families.
'We provided a detailed and considered response to the pre-action protocol letter stating the reasons why we cannot accept the demand for establishing a new public inquiry.
'It's unlikely that a public inquiry would identify any new evidence or reach new conclusions on the basis of existing evidence.
'The accident has already been the subject of six inquiries and investigations, including an independent judge-led review.'
It is understood the sealed documents contain personal information relating to third party individuals and the early release of this information would breach those individuals' data protection rights.