Published • loading... • Updated
Legal challenge over fatal 1994 RAF Chinook crash thrown out by High Court judge
The judge said the challenge came too late after earlier reviews and investigations failed to determine the crash cause.
- On Tuesday, a High Court judge rejected a legal challenge from the Chinook Justice Campaign, ruling the case was brought too late to investigate the 1994 RAF Chinook crash that killed 29 people.
- The CJC, representing more than 55 family members of 25 victims, alleged the Ministry of Defence failed to investigate airworthiness concerns regarding the Chinook HC-2 helicopter that crashed in Scotland on June 2, 1994.
- Legal counsel argued the aircraft faced a "fraught upgrade and introduction," claiming the helicopter required one engine replaced three times in months before the disaster, suggesting it was unsafe to fly.
- Solicitor Mark Stephens criticized the MoD, claiming it "hidden behind the skirts of a technicality in order to avoid candour and scrutiny," as families expressed being "extremely disappointed" by the ruling.
- Families plan to pursue the case through the European Court of Human Rights, with the CJC noting a "pernicious irony" that dismissal occurred as Parliament prepares to approve the Hillsborough Law.
Insights by Ground AI
16 Articles
16 Articles
RAF Chinook crash legal challenge thrown out of court by High Court judge
Bereaved relatives of those killed in the 1994 RAF Chinook helicopter disaster have been barred from pursuing legal action against the Ministry of Defence following a High Court decision handed down today.Mr Justice Butcher determined that the claim had been filed too late, noting that more than 14 years had elapsed since the 2011 Mull of Kintyre review concluded.The judge acknowledged the profound tragedy of the crash, which killed 29 people, s…
·London, United Kingdom
Read Full Article
Coverage Details
Total News Sources16
Leaning Left3Leaning Right2Center9Last UpdatedBias Distribution64% Center
Bias Distribution
- 64% of the sources are Center
64% Center
L 22%
C 64%
14%
Factuality
To view factuality data please Upgrade to Premium
