Apology as Chinook pilots cleared

13 July 2011 Last updated at 13:56 GMT The Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre on the west coast of Scotland in 1994 Defence Secretary Liam Fox has apologised to the families of two RAF pilots who were wrongly blamed for the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash.

Two RAF air marshals had accused Flt Lts Jonathan Tapper and Richard Cook of gross negligence over the crash on Mull of Kintyre in which 29 people died.

But a fresh review found they should not have been blamed and the earlier ruling has now been set aside.

Mr Fox said he hoped this would remove any stain on the pilots' reputations.

Campaigners have spent almost two decades trying to overturn the decision to blame Flt Lts Tapper, from Norfolk, and Cook, from Hampshire, for the crash.

They claimed that the Chinook helicopter had suffered many technical problems.

'Gross negligence'

The helicopter was carrying 25 of Britain's most senior intelligence experts from Northern Ireland to a conference in Inverness.

All 29 people on board, including the four special forces crew, died when the Chinook crashed on the Mull of Kintyre, on the west coast of Scotland.

Liam Fox apologises to the families of two RAF pilots who were wrongly blamed for a helicopter crash

After an RAF board of inquiry found the most probable cause was the selection of the wrong rate of climb, a report by two air marshals - Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day - concluded the pilots were "negligent to a gross degree".

However, a Scottish fatal accident inquiry concluded it was impossible to establish the exact cause of the crash.

The RAF verdict was also criticised in separate House of Commons and House of Lords committee reports.

Successive defence secretaries resisted pressure to reopen the case, but in May last year, Dr Fox announced he was ordering a review of the evidence.

Retired judge Lord Philip, sitting in private along with a panel of three Scottish politicians, has spent nine months reviewing the accident.

He concluded that: "Because of the limited amount of evidence available, the investigating board were unable to determine the cause of the accident, and so concluded that it was impossible to find that the pilots had been negligent to any degree.

Flt Lt Cook, left, and Flt Lt Tapper were blamed for the crash

"The reviewing officers, on the other hand, concluded on the same evidence that both pilots had been negligent to a gross degree.

"We have unanimously concluded that the high standard of proof did not allow the reviewing officers to make that finding on the basis of the available evidence."

Lord Philip's review recommended that the finding of gross negligence should be set aside.

It also said that the Ministry of Defence should reconsider its policy and procedures for the transport of personnel whose responsibilities are vital to national security.

Lord Philip added that it was "regrettable" that the MoD had adopted an "intransigent stance" to calls to reconsider the findings.

Following Lord Philip's findings, Mr Fox told the House of Commons that he had now written to the relatives of the airmen to apologise for the distress caused to them by the RAF's original findings that they were guilty of "gross negligence".

Continue reading the main story

Those who ordered a finding of gross negligence have now been shown to have acted wrongly”

End Quote Professor Peter Watson Cook family spokesman He told the Commons: "I hope that this report, and the action I have taken in response to it, will bring an end to this very sad chapter by removing the stain on the reputations of the two pilots."

Professor Peter Watson, who represented the family of Flt Lt Richard Cook, said the findings of the inquiry largely reflected the conclusions of the fatal accident inquiry in 1996.

"It also reflects what the initial RAF investigation found - namely, that there was no basis to hold the pilots negligent," he said.

"The initial Board of Inquiry findings were ordered to be altered by senior officers who had not taken part in the inquiry. Many will find this extraordinary."

He added: "The version of the Chinook which crashed had been newly introduced to service and had suffered many technical problems. Indeed, the RAF themselves pursued claims for compensation arising from faults.

"Those who ordered a finding of gross negligence have now been shown to have acted wrongly. They need to explain their conduct, which has caused such hurt to the families and damaged the reputation of two fine pilots."

View the original article here

Lover cleared of murdering wife

8 July 2011 Last updated at 11:24 GMT Carol Jarvis's body was discovered in the family home in West Lothian A woman who lived in her lover's garden hut has been cleared of murdering his sick wife.

Rita Heyster, 57, was arrested after the body of Carol Jarvis, 47, was found under the floor of her home in Bathgate, West Lothian, in 2009.

After legal debate, Judge Lord Brailsford ruled there was insufficient evidence to convict her of murder.

A jury at the High Court in Edinburgh will now have to decide if she is is guilty of trying to cover up the death.

Mrs Jarvis's husband, Harry Jarvis, 61, is expected to give evidence next week.

The trial previously heard Ms Heyster was living in a shed in the garden of the Jarvis home for weeks.

The jury has seen love notes, said to have been written to her by Mr Jarvis, which included suggestions that they should go away to start a new life together.

The court has also heard that after his wife's disappearance prompted the Jarvis children to contact police, Mr Jarvis tried to pass off Ms Heyster as his missing wife when officers searched the house.

'Weird and creepy'

Mrs Jarvis suffered from a range of medical difficulties which sometimes resulted in her being virtually bed-ridden.

She also took medication to counter the threat of fits and had numerous tests as doctors tried to find the cause of her problems.

Doctors were unable to say how she died in spite of two post-mortem examinations.

At the start of the trial, daughter Kimberley Jarvis told how she discovered Heyster was living in their garden hut.

"It was weird and creepy," said the 20-year-old student.

Ms Heyster had denied murder and attempting to defeat the ends of justice by trying to cover up the crime in September 2009.

Although she has been found not guilty of murder, it is alleged Ms Heyster failed to notify the authorities of the death, wrapped the dead body in a blanket and hid Mrs Jarvis in the basement of the house.

The 57-year-old has lodged papers in court blaming Harry Jarvis for any wrong doing.

The trial continues.

View the original article here

Wheelchair protest police cleared

27 May 2011 Last updated at 18:43 GMT Jody McIntyre (centre) said he was hit with a baton and dragged across a road in central London Police were justified in removing a man from his wheelchair during a violent demonstration against tuition fees in central London, Scotland Yard has said.

Jody McIntyre said he was tipped out of his chair and dragged across a road on 9 December, and was hit with a baton.

A police probe found officers were right to remove him from the wheelchair based on the "perceived risk" to him, while the baton hit was "inadvertent".

The 20-year-old said the findings were "shockingly poor" and plans to appeal.

The Directorate of Professional Standards at the Metropolitan Police (Met) said violent disorder had been taking place and officers were "under sustained attack and were required to use force to protect themselves".

"Whilst there is evidence that Jody McIntyre was inadvertently struck with a police baton, the investigation found that the actions of officers were justifiable and lawful given the volatile and dangerous situation," the force added in a statement.

"His removal from his wheelchair was also justifiable given the officers' perceived risk to Jody McIntyre."

'Telling' findings

But Mr McIntyre said he found it "stunning that their justification for their violence towards me is that I was in the way of a violent attack on a crowd of protesters, which included children".

"Remarkably, the report even contains the suggestion that I threw myself from my wheelchair," he added.

"Throughout the report the police officers involved have stated that they were acting in my best interests, and this appears to have been accepted by those carrying out the investigation."

It was a "telling indication" of how the Met viewed disability, he said.

The force appeared to believe that "the fact someone has a disability renders them incapable of determining their own best interest or to act with autonomy", he said.

Following the investigation, internal guidelines will be drawn up on the most appropriate way to move a wheelchair user in such circumstances.

View the original article here