The Nimrod Review - Official Documents

The Nimrod Review
The Nimrod Inquest: May 2008
16.1
440
Coronial jurisdiction is geographical. On 13 September 2006, the bodies of the crew of XV230 were repatriated
to RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire with full military honours. Jurisdiction for conducting the inquests into the
deaths of the crew of XV230 lay, therefore, with the Oxfordshire Coroner’s Court. A joint Inquest took place
before the Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner (Andrew Walker) between 6 and 23 May 2008. The major
parties, namely the MOD, BAE Systems, QinetiQ and the families, were represented by legal Counsel (and
Michael Bell represented the siblings and parents of Flight Sergeant Gerard Martin Bell). I closely monitored
the proceedings using Counsel present throughout the hearing (Peter Ferrer), and Counsel to the Review (Luke
Parsons QC and Caroline Pounds) who were present for certain parts of the evidence. The Inquest lasted
three weeks and attracted much sensational publicity. On analysis, however, the Inquest produced little factual
evidence of value to the Review.
Legal nature of an Inquest
16.2
16.3
A coroner’s inquest is essentially a limited factual inquiry into the circumstances leading to the loss of life. A
coroner is required by s. 11(5)(b) of the Coroners Act 1988 and Rule 36(1)(b) of the Coroner’s Rules to set out the
particulars regarding the identity of the deceased and when, where and how the deceased came by their death.
Rule 42 of the Coroner’s Rules specifies that “No verdict shall be framed in such a way as to appear to determine
any question of (a) criminal liability on the part of any person or (b) civil liability...”. “How” was interpreted by
the Court of Appeal in ex parte Jamieson [1995] QB 1 as meaning simply “by what means”. It was argued by
Counsel for the families (Michael Rawlinson) that the circumstances of the XV230 accident gave rise to questions
of “actual or potential state responsibility” 1 , and, accordingly, there should be a coroner’s investigation under
Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) 2 applying the wider definition of “how” set out
by Lord Bingham in R (Middleton) v West Somerset Coroner (2004) 17 BHRC 49, 3 namely “by what means and
in what circumstances”. The Coroner ruled, however, that this was not necessary on the basis that the State’s
duty to carry out an Article 2 investigation would be satisfied “jointly” by his inquest and the Nimrod Review. 4
The Coroner’s task in a case as complex as XV230 was far from straightforward. Moreover, an inquest with an
emotionally charged atmosphere is not an ideal forum for analysing highly technical matters.
Coroner’s verdict
16.4 The Coroner, sitting without a jury, gave a lengthy narrative verdict and entered a verdict of “Accidental Death”.
I have studied the Coroner’s narrative verdict and make the following points regarding his findings: 5
16.4.1 First, the Coroner’s finding as to the most likely fuel source did not accord with the realistic probabilities.
He said the most likely source for the fuel was a leak from the fuel feed system to engines Nos. 3 and 4
which would have provided “a continuous source of fuel” which would “travel along the aircraft into dry
bay 7” to the seat of the fire. I am satisfied, however, that this mechanism is highly unlikely. As I explain
in Chapter 5, it is highly unlikely that a leak from the fuel feed system to engines Nos. 3 and 4 would
have resulted in a sufficient quantity of fuel making its way into the starboard No. 7 Tank Dry Bay. The
pipes for the fuel feed system to engines Nos. 3 and 4 are located at the leading edge of the starboard
wing. For fuel to reach the No. 7 Tank Dry Bay from this point it would have to follow a convoluted
path which would involve: (a) tracking back some 17 feet; (b) crossing numerous lateral members; (c)
passing through an almost solid dividing wall; and (d) avoiding air vent holes in Rib 1 which would also
act as fluid drains, before reaching the point of ignition. There is no significant history of leaks from this
location. As the US Air Force Safety Centre commented, this scenario has “a very low probability with
no supporting evidence of feasibility” (see Chapter 3). There are other, far more probable, scenarios.
1 C.f. R(Hurst) v London Northern District Coroner [2007] 2 AC 189; and Jordan v UK (2001) 11 BHRC 1, where the court held that in appropriate cases
deaths involving state bodies the investigation was “to ensure their accountability for deaths occurring under their responsibility” (paragraph [105]).
2 The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was incorporated into domestic law by the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000.
3 Ibid, paragraph [35].
4 Inquest transcript, 7 May 2008, page 5, fourth paragraph.
5 Coroner’s narrative verdict, 23 May 2008.