Families of Chinook crash victims demand answers
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.
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 incident remains one of the RAF's worst peacetime losses of life.
READ MORE: Wet bank holiday weather to end record-breaking dry spring in Scotland
Nearly 31 years on from the crash, many of the bereaved families have written an open letter to the UK Government renewing calls for a public inquiry into the incident.
They have also called for the full release of documents that have been locked away until 2094 by the Ministry of Defence (MoD), revealed in a BBC documentary last year.
Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father Lt Col John Tobias, 41, was killed, said the 'secrecy' raises questions about what really happened.
'I lost my father, and part of my childhood, because he was put on board a helicopter that had been deemed unairworthy and should never have taken off,' he said, speaking publicly about the incident for the first time.
'In my view, it's nothing short of corporate manslaughter.
'I have tried for many years to put this crash, and my family's unnecessary loss, behind me – but learning that the MoD has sealed away the archive until after all of us will be long gone seriously raises my concerns about what really happened and who knew what.
'Why the secrecy? Why did my father and 28 others die? We want answers.'
A memorial
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.
Esme Sparks, who was just seven-years-old when her father Major Gary Sparks lost his life, said it had been a 'shock' to learn about the existence of the documents.
'Why on earth would they be sealed for so long if there was not something being hidden? Who or what is being protected?' she said, also speaking publicly for the first time.
'My whole family wants answers and action because my daddy was denied his right to life – put in danger by the MoD on an aircraft deemed not airworthy.
'We are furious that the Government and the MoD is refusing to listen or to meet us.
'Our request for a meeting with the defence minister was summarily dismissed with platitudes. What happened to their duty of candour promises?'
The open letter states the Chinook Justice Campaign – which includes most of the bereaved families – formally requested a public inquiry on October 9 2024, but that this was rejected by the minister for veterans and people Alistair Carns on December 17.
It adds that the minister has not yet responded to a subsequent request for a meeting.
The letter also describes the 'huge concern and upset' the sealed documents have caused to the bereaved families.
'The papers will not be released until 2094, long after the spouses and children of those killed have themselves passed away,' it states.
'It is unbearable to us as bereaved families to know that this sealed information could give us the answers we need.'
The letter adds: 'Wives, children, and families left behind deserve answers about why our loved ones never came home.
'They would never have boarded the helicopter had they known it was not airworthy.
'They would have had long, full lives and would have lived to see their children and grandchildren grow up.'
The MoD has been approached for comment.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer under pressure to reveal migrant crime numbers
Sir Keir Starmer will come under pressure next week to reveal the 'hidden' scale of migrant crime. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, is to propose a law change that would force the Government to publish the data identifying the migrant nationalities with the highest crime rates. He is laying an amendment to Labour's Crime and Policing Bill that would require ministers to publish every quarter the nationality, country of birth, visa route, asylum status and method of entry of everyone convicted and sentenced to crimes in the Crown Court and magistrates court. Mr Jenrick plans to force it to a vote of MPs on the floor of the Commons and said that, if passed, it would end the 'shameful cover-up' by state authorities which has prevented the public from being told the scale of crime committed by foreign nationals. It would mirror an approach by some US states and Denmark, where league tables compiled from the government data show the crime rates of the top four nations – Kuwait, Tunisia, Lebanon and Somalia – are eight times those of Danish nationals. 'We need the full, unvarnished truth' The Telegraph has previously published data on migrant crime rates but only as a result of the figures being released by Government departments under freedom of information laws. That research suggested that foreign nationals were convicted of up to a quarter of sex crimes despite census data showing that they made up just 9.3 per cent of the population. Mr Jenrick said: 'We need to know the truth about who is committing crime in our country so we can protect the British public. 'Right now we are importing a crime wave. Data that has been dragged out of the authorities shows migrants from some countries are enormously more likely to commit violent and sexual offences. 'Indicative statistics suggest Albanians are 153 times more likely to be convicted of drug offences, while Eritreans are 20 times more likely to commit a sexual offence. We need the full, unvarnished truth. 'Keir Starmer has a choice. Will he release the data about migrant crime, as countries like Denmark do, and act on it? Or will he instigate yet another shameful cover-up?' Labour has proposed its own league tables of migrant crime rates based on the nationalities and foreign criminals living in communities while awaiting deportation. Albanians, Romanians and Poles are expected to be among the top nationalities for crimes including violence, robbery, theft and drug production and dealing. It is understood Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, overruled Home Office officials who have previously claimed it is too difficult to provide quality data on foreign criminals. She has told them she wants it published by the end of the year. Her immigration white paper also proposed that the Home Office should be informed of all crimes committed by foreign nationals in the UK as part of a deportation crackdown. At present, foreign criminals are only reported to the Home Office if they receive a jail sentence. A year behind bars is the automatic threshold for deportation from the UK, although those with prison terms under one year can still be considered for removal. It is thought unlikely, however, that Labour will back Mr Jenrick's proposal although it is likely to be backed by Nigel Farage's Reform UK. Data previously published by The Telegraph and obtained through FOI legislation by the Centre for Migration control revealed that foreign nationals accounted for between one in eight (12.5 per cent) and as many as one in six (16.4 per cent) of all convictions in England and Wales. According to the new data, 872,488 convictions were recorded on the police national computer between 2021 and 2023, of which 833,522 had identifiable nationality information. Foreign nationals accounted for 104,000, but there were a further 38,966 where the nationality was 'unknown'.
Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Defendants should have right to choose judge-only trial, says Leveson
Defendants are to get the right to ask for a judge-only trial without a jury. Under plans for 'once-in-a-generation' reform to reduce court backlogs, an independent review set up by the Government will recommend ministers should follow the example of Canada, Australia and New Zealand and allow defendants in the crown court to opt for a judge-only trial. Sir Brian Leveson, the senior judge heading the review, will recommend the move as a way to speed up trials to tackle the record backlog of more than 75,000 cases which is forcing some victims to wait up to four or five years for justice. He told a conference on modernising justice: 'I can see the advantage in lots of cases. You will get a reasoned judgment [from a judge]. In front of a jury, you don't get a judgment at all, you get guilty or not guilty. 'The case will be undeniably speedier because the judge doesn't have to explain to the jury all the basic premises of the criminal law.' Sir Brian is also expected to recommend that the public should be spared jury service if a case is going to last more than 12 months because of the 'unfairness' of it taking a year out of their lives and livelihoods. Instead, such cases would be heard by a judge without a jury. Other proposals will further scale back people's right to a jury trial for some lower level offences such as assault of a police officer while resisting arrest, racially aggravated criminal damage, dangerous driving and possessing a class B drug like cannabis. These are likely to be tried either by an intermediate court comprising a judge and two magistrates or by extending the powers of magistrates to try cases carrying sentences of up to two years, rather than only those with maximum jail terms of one year, as at present. Sir Brian was appointed by Shabana Mahmood, the Justice Secretary, who said that 'once-in-a-generation reform' of the courts was the only way to tackle justice delays for victims. Internal Ministry of Justice forecasts suggested the backlogs could rise to 100,000 without radical action. Sir Brian said there was a 'real risk that the system will collapse' as defendants take advantage of cases being delayed as long as 2029 and 'threw the dice' in the hope their victims or witnesses disengaged and prosecutions were abandoned. He also said it would be up to the Government to decide which types of cases it felt were appropriate for defendants to have the right to spurn a jury but he said the judges would have the discretion to overrule any request if it was in the public interest to do so. 'There are some cases, which I would not consider appropriate for a judge to try alone, and I would give the judge a discretion,' Sir Brian said. 'So a defendant may say, 'I would like to be tried by a judge alone', and the judge would be perfectly entitled to say, 'I think not'.' Public opprobrium He suggested one type of case judge-only trials could be where there was significant 'public opprobrium' over the case such as sexual or sadistic violence and could sway the jury. 'I can see defendants, perhaps charged with cases that attract public opprobrium being concerned about a jury coming in from their daily lives to face that trial,' he said. 'Equally, I can see if it's that much public opprobrium, why a judge may say, 'I'm not sure about that.' So there is a balance to be done, but judges make judicial decisions all the time.' He said it could also apply to factually or legally extremely complex cases where a jury may struggle to fully understand the case. A third type could where there had been alleged confession or identification, where judges tended to be more rigorous in scrutinising its validity than necessarily a jury. Sir Brian said there had been a limited number of cases where judges had heard cases alone such as where a jury had to be discharged due to evidence of jury tampering. He is expected to deliver his report to Ms Mahmood next week with publication expected in early July. It follows a similar review of sentencing by David Gauke, the former Tory justice secretary, which recommended freeing some prisoners as little as a third of the way through sentence to tackle prison overcrowding.
Glasgow Times
4 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
Move faster on firms' public contracts ban, Grenfell survivor urges Government
Bereaved and survivors of the blaze will gather on Saturday in west London for the annual commemoration of the disaster which claimed 72 lives. It is likely to be the final anniversary which takes place with the tower still standing in its current form, as demolition work could begin in September. Former tower resident Edward Daffarn, who had previously raised safety concerns and predicted a 'catastrophic event' at the tower seven months before the fire, said this year's memorial will be 'all the more poignant' for that reason. But Mr Daffarn is hopeful a new documentary about the blaze, due to air on Netflix next week, will spur Government efforts to take action against companies linked to fire. He told the PA news agency: 'One thing that this documentary needs to do is it needs to put pressure on the Government to ensure that the companies involved are not able to access public funding, and I'm hoping that this documentary will accelerate that process.' The Cabinet office confirmed in February that seven companies were facing possible bans – cladding firm Arconic, insulation firm Kingspan, former Celotex owners Saint-Gobain, fire inspectors Exova, design and build contractor Rydon, architect Studio E and subcontractor Harley Facades. Grenfell survivor Edward Daffarn has spoken out ahead of the eighth anniversary of the fire (Lucy North/PA) It is understood investigations were launched into all of them in March, looking into whether any engaged in professional misconduct for the purposes of the Procurement Act 2023, potentially leading them to be debarred from public contracts. No timeline has been given for how long it might be before outcomes are known. The final Grenfell Tower Inquiry report, published in September, concluded victims, bereaved and survivors were 'badly failed' through incompetence, dishonesty and greed. The west London tower block was covered in combustible products because of the 'systematic dishonesty' of firms who made and sold the cladding and insulation, inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick said. He called out 'deliberate and sustained' manipulation of fire-safety testing, misrepresentation of test data and misleading of the market. Mr Daffarn said the documentary will be the first 'that truly exposes and brings into people's living rooms' the 'cowardice of the corporates and how profit was put before people'. He said; 'I hope that people who watch the documentary come to understand that although Grenfell happened eight years ago, there's a lot that still hasn't been resolved and, as a consequence, the companies involved with Grenfell just seem to want to brush everything under the carpet and carry on making money. 'And I think the documentary clearly exposes how little these companies and individuals have been held to account for their roles in Grenfell.' On Government efforts, which Sir Keir Starmer first announced last September, to debar companies, Mr Daffarn said the process is 'too slow' and bereaved and survivors are 'still waiting' for companies to face consequences. He said anyone left angered by the documentary could avoid buying products from companies criticised in the report to 'make sure that those companies understand that there is a consequence of their actions'. The final report was published by the Grenfell Tower Inquiry in September (James Manning/PA) Bereaved and survivors have long campaigned for criminal charges to be brought over the disaster. Police and prosecutors have previously said investigators would need until the end of 2025 to complete their inquiry, with final decisions on potential criminal charges by the end of 2026. The near 10-year wait for justice has been described by families as 'unbearable'. The decision to bring the tower block down was confirmed earlier this year and prompted mixed reaction, with some people feeling their views had not been properly taken into consideration. Sharing his own opinion, and acknowledging the difficulty others feel in seeing the tower regularly, Mr Daffarn said: 'I think the anniversary is made all the more poignant by the fact that this is the last time that we will meet with the tower in situ. 'We haven't got justice yet. It feels wrong to be pulling the tower down while so much remains unresolved.' The Government said while some had hoped the building could remain in place as a reminder of what happened, others had reported this would be 'too painful'. The demolition process is expected to take around two years. A Government spokesperson said: 'As we approach the eighth anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, our thoughts remain with the bereaved families, survivors and the immediate community. 'This government remains committed to ensuring that what happened at Grenfell is never forgotten, and to delivering the change needed so it can never happen again.'
