Scott Hoyle v Julia Mary Rogers and Another Secretary of State for Transport (1st Intervener) International Air Transport Association (2nd Intervener)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Christopher Clarke,Lord Justice Treacy,Lady Justice Arden |
| Judgment Date | 13 March 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWCA Civ 257 |
| Docket Number | Case No: B3/2013/1817,B3/2013/1817 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 13 March 2014 |
[2014] EWCA Civ 257
Lady Justice Arden
Lord Justice Treacy
and
Lord Justice Christopher Clarke
Case No: B3/2013/1817
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
MR JUSTICE LEGGATT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Robert Lawson QC and Timothy Marland (instructed by Clyde & Co LLP) for the Appellant
Michael Crane QC and John Kimbell (instructed by Stewarts Law LLP) for the Respondent
Malcolm Sheehan (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the 1 st Intervener
Akhil Shah QC (instructed by Holman Fenwick Willan) for the 2 nd Intervener
Hearing date: 15 th January 2014
On 15 May 2011 Orlando Rogers was a passenger in a vintage Tiger Moth propeller bi-plane manufactured in 1940 of which the appellant, Scott Hoyle, was the pilot. In the course of the flight the aircraft crashed to the ground. Mr Rogers was killed. Mr Hoyle was seriously injured but survived. The claimants, respondents to this appeal, who are Mr Rogers' mother and sister, bring this action as executors on behalf of his estate and as dependants, claiming damages for his death as a result of the accident, which they attribute to Mr Hoyle's negligence.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch ("AAIB") investigated the accident and on 14 June 2012 produced a report ("the Report"). The issue in this appeal is whether the judge was right to hold that the Report was admissible in evidence and to decline to exclude it as a matter of discretion.
Mr Robert Lawson QC on behalf of the appellant contends (a) that the admission of the Report would offend the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] KB 857; (b) that, insofar as the Report contains expressions of expert opinion, it does not comply with the mandatory provisions of CPR Part 35 and should be excluded on that ground as well; and (c) that, if the Report is potentially admissible, it should be excluded, as a matter of discretion, under CPR 32 and that the judge was wrong to decline to do so. In relation to the latter question the Secretary of State for Transport ("SoS") and the International Air Transport Association ("IATA") were given leave to intervene and have made representations as to the approach that the court should take. They have invited us to lay down guidelines for the future.
The AAIB and the Regulations
The AAIB is part of the Department for Transport. It was established in 1915. Its task is to investigate accidents and serious incidents involving aircraft which occur in or over the United Kingdom. Its powers are contained in the Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996 ("the Regulations") which were made under sections 75 and 102 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. These Regulations implement the EU obligations of the United Kingdom under Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 ("the Directive") and put into effect the requirements of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, signed in Chicago on 7 December 1944 ("the Chicago Convention").
Article 26 of the Chicago Convention provides that a State in which an accident to an aircraft occurs shall institute an inquiry in accordance with the procedure recommended by the International Civil Aviation Organisation ("ICAO"). That procedure is in Annex 13 to the Convention ("Annex 13").
Regulation (EU) 996/2010 on the Investigation and Prevention of Accidents and Incidents in Civil Aviation ("the EU Regulation") establishes a parallel regime with direct effect in Member States. The EU Regulation came into force on 2 December 2010. There is a substantial overlap between the EU Regulation and the Regulations. The Regulations have not, however, been repealed. It is sufficient to outline the statutory scheme for the investigation of air accidents established by the Regulations without also referring to the corresponding provisions of the EU Regulation.
Regulation 8 provides for the appointment of Inspectors of Air Accidents who are collectively known as the AAIB. When an accident occurs in or over the United Kingdom the Chief Inspector (who reports to the SoS) must appoint one or more Inspectors to carry out an investigation. The team is supervised by a senior supervising Inspector. The Inspectors are not normally named in a report, and were not in the present case. But there is no great difficulty in establishing who they are and they do not seek to hide their identity. In the present case the identity of the senior supervising Inspector; the operations Inspector, who is a qualified and experienced pilot; and the engineering Inspector, who is a chartered aeronautical engineer, is known. There is usually, as there was here, a flight data Inspector who is qualified in avionics and/or flight data analysis. The investigation teams are commonly named in published reports, although they were not in this case.
The Regulations give the Inspectors a series of powers to enable them to carry out investigations, including (a) rights of access to the accident site and the aircraft or its wreckage, the flight recorders and any other recordings, and the results of the examination of bodies of victims and of examinations of the people involved in the operation of the aircraft; and (b) the right to examine witnesses and to have access to relevant information or records held by the owner, operator or manufacturer of the aircraft and by the civil aviation and airport authorities.
The power to examine witnesses includes power to summon them to give evidence; to require them to answer questions or produce documents; to take witness statements and to require the giver of the statement to make and sign a declaration of truth; and to inspect any place, building or aircraft and to take measures for the preservation of evidence: Regulation 9 (2). In practice the AAIB receives a high degree of cooperation and does not, to any appreciable extent, have to rely on its powers of compulsion.
These powers are, by Regulation 9, to be exercised, where appropriate " in cooperation with the authorities responsible for the judicial inquiry". By Regulation 9(5) this has the same meaning as in the Directive. This appears to be a reference to Article 5 of the Directive which provides for coordination of investigations when a judicial investigation is also instituted.
There are two critical features of an AAIB investigation. First, the sole objective of the investigation is the prevention of accidents and incidents. Second, it is not the purpose of the investigation to apportion blame or liability: see Article 3.1. of Annex 13; Regulation 4 of the Regulations, and Article 4 (3) of the Directive.
Regulation 10 provides that the extent of investigations and the procedure to be followed in carrying out investigations required or authorised under the Regulations is to be determined by the Chief Inspector taking account of the purpose described in Regulation 4, the principles and objectives of the Directive and the lessons he expects to draw from the accident or incident for the improvement of safety.
Regulation 11 (1) requires the investigating Inspector to prepare a report "in a form appropriate to the type and seriousness of the accident or incident". That report is by Regulation 11 (3) required to state the sole objective of the investigation and, where appropriate, to contain safety recommendations. Regulation 11 (5) provides that a " safety recommendation shall in no case create a presumption of liability for an accident or incident". The report is required to protect the anonymity of those involved in the incident: Regulation 11 (4) (b). This reflects what Article 5.12.2. of Annex 13 provides.
Regulation 13 requires that, subject to regulation 12 (1), the Chief Inspector shall cause the report to be made public in the shortest possible time and, if possible, within 12 months of the accident or incident. Regulation 12 (1) provides that no report shall be published if it is likely to affect adversely the reputation of any person until the procedure under that regulation has been completed. That provides for notice to be served on the person affected or, if he is deceased, a person representing his interest, of any proposed analysis of facts and conclusions as to the cause (s) of the accident or incident which may affect the person concerned. The person notified has the chance to make representations within 28 days of the notice, and the report can only be published with any changes that the investigating Inspector sees fit to make in the light of them.
The report is a public document but the records of the investigation are not. Regulation 18 (1) provides that, subject to an important exception, no relevant record shall be made available by the Secretary of State to any person for purposes other than accident or incident investigation. A relevant record is an item referred to in certain sub-paragraphs of paragraph 5.12 of Annex 13. These include (a) all statements taken; (b) all communications between persons involved in the operation of the aircraft; (c) medical or private information regarding those involved in the accident or incident; (d) cockpit voice recordings and transcripts from such recordings; and (e) recordings and transcriptions of recordings from air traffic control units. Regulation 18 (5) provides that relevant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marie-Therese Elisabeth Helene Hohenberg Bailey v Anthony John Bailey
...of fact in earlier judgments, giving them such weight as it thinks fit.” 27. Both possibilities were recognised in Rogers v Hoyle [2015] QB 265, which concerned the admissibility in a negligence action of a report on the accident by the Department of Transport's Air Accident Investigation ......
-
AXA France Iard SA (The Successor to Financial Insurance Company Ltd) v Santander Cards UK Ltd
...case of Hollington v Hewthorn [1943] 1 KB 587 and Christopher Clarke LJ's restatement of the rule in that case in Rogers v Hoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257, [39] [40]: As the judge rightly recognised the foundation on which the rule must now rest is that findings of fact made by another decision ......
-
Simon Kevin Frain (Aka Simon Kevin Reeves, Aka Bill Reeves) v Louise Michelle Reeves
...ii) The “foundation” of the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn has been explained more recently by Christopher Clarke LJ in Rogers v Hoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257 at [39]: “findings of fact made by another decision maker are not to be admitted in a subsequent trial because the decision at that tria......
-
Emmanuel Towuaghantse v General Medical Council
...on the trial of the issue in the civil court, the opinion of the criminal court is equally irrelevant.” 28 In Hoyle v Rogers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 257, [2015] 1 QB 265, a case about the admissibility of an Air Accident Investigation Branch report in a negligence action, Christo0pher Clark......
-
Commercial Court Decides That New Practice Direction In Relation To Trial Witness Statements In Business & Property Courts Has Not Changed Law On Admissibility Of Evidence
...situation as to what could or would have happened: Kirkman v. Euro Exide Corp (CMP Batteries Ltd) [2007] EWCA Civ 66;Rogers v Hoyle [2015] Q.B. 265. Such evidence may be considered as evidence of fact, even though it is, by its nature, hypothetical and not evidence of observed fact. The Jud......
-
The Dekagram 23rd January 2023
...statement, and when doing so, they would have regard to the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained (Hoyle v Rogers & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ 257). Not satisfied, the Defendant applied to Court to have references to the care expert's interview with the colleague, along with any opinio......
-
The Disclosure Of Data Arising From Accident Investigations
...engineering state of the aircraft and / or conducting test flights if so required. Following on from the decision in Rogers v Hoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257, in which the Court of Appeal decided that AAIB reports were admissible in civil proceedings, and the effect that decision had on the cando......
-
Expert Evidence, Hearsay and Victims of Trafficking
...to suggest thatas such reports are admissible as hearsay evidence of expert opinion in civil proceedings (Rogers vHoyle [2014] EWCA Civ 257), so should the SCA minute be. Admissibility of such hearsay evidencewould be ‘in the interests of justice’where it was necessary in order to raise the......