Public Office (Accountability) Bill — Written evidence submitted by the Chinook Justice Campaign (POAB09)

Campaign Group Statement – The Chinook Justice Campaign
Submitted by: The Chinook Justice Campaign
Bill: Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Stage: House of Commons – Committee Stage Written Evidence
1. Introduction
We, the families of 25 of the 29 people killed in the RAF Chinook ZD576 helicopter crash
on the Mull of Kintyre on 2 June 1994, submit this evidence to the House of Commons
Committee to illustrate why the Public Office (Accountability) Bill is urgently needed. Our
loved ones included pilots, crew, senior intelligence officers, military personnel, RUC
officers, and civilian experts. Their deaths constituted the deadliest peacetime loss of life in
the RAF’s history.
For over 30 years we have not only endured profound grief, but also a sustained pattern of
institutional obstruction, secrecy, and the withholding of vital information by the Ministry of
Defence (MoD). Our experience demonstrates the devastating human cost of a system
that lacks statutory duties of candour, transparency, and accountability.
This Bill, if strengthened and properly enforced, has the potential to prevent other
bereaved families from facing the suffering we have endured. The Chinook Justice
Campaign has read the Hillsborough Law Now briefing and fully support all amendments
stated.
2. Purpose of Our Submission
Our evidence is provided to assist the Committee in scrutinising the provisions of the
Public Office (Accountability) Bill, with particular attention to:
• the need for a statutory duty of candour across all public authorities
including intelligence services with real consequences;
• the need for statutory independent oversight;
• personal responsibility for senior leaders;
• strong whistle blowing protections;
• parity of legal funding for families; and

• quick commencement of the Act
Our experience with the MoD illustrates precisely why this legislation is required—and why
it must contain enforceable obligations, not voluntary or discretionary measures and why
all public bodies including the Intelligence Services and MoD must be subject to it.
3. Relevance of the Chinook Mull of Kintyre Case to This Bill
The Chinook crash is a striking example of what happens when a public body is able to
avoid transparency; they don’t release critical documents to investigations, they blame the
dead, they mark their own homework, they gaslight the families. Critical documents
relating to the crash have been sealed by the MoD for 100 years—far beyond ordinary
practice, far beyond any justification grounded in national security and far beyond the
lifetime of even the children of those whose lives were lost.
Furthermore:
• Known technical concerns relating to the aircraft’s FADEC system were not
disclosed to families.
• Test pilots had refused to fly the aircraft, and it had been grounded at Boscombe
Down—but this information was neither shared nor transparently investigated.
• Initial inquiries failed to consider the airworthiness of the aircraft, and the MoD
blamed two dead pilots with gross negligence, their families having to endure a 16-
year fight to clear their names, the MoD now maintains a narrative that it was a
“tragic accident” despite evidence to the contrary.
• Families were excluded from subsequent investigations and kept uninformed for
decades.
• After 18 months of asking for a meeting with the MoD, we have only just been
granted one. Families should not have to beg the department which is responsible
for the cover up for an inquiry.
These failings could only occur because no duty of candour exists, and because no
statutory mechanism compelled the MoD to disclose information to families or to
Parliament. Crucial witnesses were ordered not to get involved in the investigations.
Families are only able to pursue the truth because of pro bono support, without this, justice
would be completely out of reach.
The Chinook crash bears remarkable similarities to the Hillsborough disaster:
Premature or Unjustified Blame on the Deceased- In both cases, authorities quickly
and incorrectly blamed victims, which delayed recognition of institutional failings.
• RAF pilots were posthumously blamed with gross negligence despite
insufficient evidence. Their families fought for 16 years to clear their names.
• Later reviews—including the House of Lords Select Committee—concluded that the
standard of proof for pilot negligence had not been met.
Institutional Self-Protection- Both cases involved institutions prioritising reputational
protection over transparent scrutiny.
• The RAF and Ministry of Defence initially defended the decision to blame the pilots.

• Concerns raised about airworthiness of the Chinook were ignored.
Suppression of Evidence- In both events, important evidence was minimised, altered,
or not disclosed, contributing to flawed conclusions.
• Evidence of possible technical issues (engine control system anomalies,
incomplete airworthiness certification) was withheld from inquiries by the MoD.
• Key factual uncertainties were not properly acknowledged or investigated.
Long-Term Campaigns for Justice- In both cases, relentless efforts by families and
advocates were required to overturn initial official positions.
Families and aviation experts campaigned for years before official findings were revisited
and the pilots were formally exonerated (2011).
Families continue to fight for an independent judge led public inquiry to look at why their
loved ones were allowed to fly on an aircraft which even the most experienced test pilots
were prohibited from flying.
Failures in Accountability Mechanisms- The oversight and investigation systems failed
to provide fair, reliable judgments.
• The Board of Inquiry process was criticised for:
◦ lack of independence
◦ insufficient evidential standards
◦ undue certainty despite ambiguous data
4. The Need for Statutory Independent Oversight
The Committee should be aware that:
• The MoD’s decision to seal documents for a century has deprived multiple
generations of families of truth and closure.
• This practice appears intended to protect the institution from scrutiny rather than
protect national interests.
• Senior political leaders—including those directly responsible at the time- former
Defence Secretaries—have stated publicly that even they were misled or not given
the full facts.
Without safeguards and independent statutory oversight the culture of institutional self-
protection will continue.
5. Independent Oversight and Families’ Rights
Our experience demonstrates the need for statutory oversight mechanisms that do not rely
on the honesty of the institution under scrutiny. We urge the Committee to strengthen the
Bill so that families:
• have a statutory right to information relating to the deaths of loved ones;
• receive timely and proactive updates;

• have access to independent legal representation funded through legal aid to
parity with public authorities;
• are not forced to rely on media investigations and pro bono legal support to
uncover the truth.
The Chinook case shows that families must not be placed in the position of investigators,
should not have to beg the very institution responsible for a cover up to investigate it
properly, nor should they need to be dragged through the courts to undertake judicial
review simply to access basic evidence.
6. Institutional Culture and the Duty of Candour
The Committee should recognise that voluntary commitments to openness do not work.
We have witnessed:
• decades of silence,
• blaming of dead pilots with exemplary service records,
• deliberate withholding of crucial technical evidence,
• misrepresentation of facts to families, Parliament, and the public,
• a refusal to acknowledge known defects, and
• a systemic disregard for the rights and dignity of bereaved families.
A legal duty of candour—with clear sanctions for breaches and direct responsibility for
senior leaders—is essential. Without enforceability, institutions can and will revert to
secrecy.
7. Testimonies and Human Impact
Accountability is not abstract. The absence of candour has caused real, lasting,
preventable harm. It is impossible for families to move on from the loss because of the lack
of information or answers form the MoD. Our loved ones are gone, and yet we cannot
move on with our grief because of the lack of information and accountability. For three
decades, the families have faced secrecy, denial, deceit, and dishonesty from the MoD
along with shifting explanations and an absence of evidence. Psychologist Dr Pauline
Boss has described this as ‘ambiguous loss’- it isn’t just emotional, it’s psychological and
intellectual. Families are left frozen in their grief — and it’s the consequence of
institutional opacity. Only full transparency and a judge-led inquiry can end that cruelty.
We highlight that:
• Children grew up without fathers; some never met them.
• Wives were forced to rebuild their lives immediately, often while moving home out of
army accommodation, losing military communities, and enduring ongoing media
exposure.
• Mental health impacts, including PTSD, anxiety, and depression, have been
widespread.

• Several relatives have died without ever knowing the truth. Others are elderly and
may die still waiting.
• Families are having to fight for truth over 30 years on and are still being met by
institutional silence.
8. Our Recommendations to the Committee
We respectfully urge the Committee to strengthen the Public Accountability Bill by ensuring
that it:
- Mandates independent statutory oversight
Through an Independent Public Advocate or equivalent statutory body with powers of
access to documents, witnesses and authority to compel cooperation.
- Guarantees families’ rights
Including timely access to information, funded legal assistance, and trauma-informed
engagement by public authorities.
- Requires accountability for past institutional failings
Ensuring that concealment, negligence, and misrepresentation—such as those witnessed
in the Chinook case—cannot recur.
In addition, we have read the Hillsborough Law Now briefing and fully support all
amendments stated which are repeated below:
- Senior executives should be personally responsible for ensuring candour.
- Remove the requirement to prove “harm” for misleading the public.
-Ensure fair legal funding for families.
-Strengthen whistleblowing protections.
-Bring the Act into force on Royal Assent to avoid delays.
-Ensure that the Intelligence Services and their officers are fully subject to the duty of
candour and the duty to assist, including compliance notices, with appropriate national
security safeguards.
-Add “intelligence services” explicitly to the definition of public authorities in Schedule 2
to ensure consistent and transparent application.
9. Conclusion
The Chinook Mull of Kintyre case exemplifies why this legislation is necessary. For more
than 30 years we have faced institutional silence, misrepresentation, and the sealing of
evidence crucial to understanding why our loved ones died.

We seek truth, transparency, and justice. The Committee now has the opportunity to shape
a Bill that protects future families from suffering what we have endured.
Let the memory of those lost be honoured by a legal system that mandates honesty
and accountability.
Justice has no expiry date.