The son of a victim of the 1994 Chinook helicopter crash has called for “truth and transparency” after the Ministry of Defence dismissed demands for a judge-led public inquiry.
Families of the 29 people who died in the disaster have vowed to press on with seeking a judicial review in the High Court over the MoD’s decision.
RAF Chinook ZD576 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre en-route from RAF Aldergrove in Northern Ireland to a conference at Fort George in Scotland, killing all those on board, including 25 British intelligence personnel and four crew.
A finding of gross negligence against the Chinook’s pilots, Flight Lieutenants Richard Cook and Jonathan Tapper, was overturned by the UK government 17 years later following a campaign by the families.
The families launched legal action in a “letter before action” to the UK government, sent on 2 June – the 31st anniversary of the crash.
They said they will now pursue a judicial review after the MoD rejected their demands for a public inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Andy Tobias, who was eight when his father Lt Col John Tobias died in the crash, told Sky News he and other relatives of the victims were “absolutely furious” to learn files have been sealed for 100 years.
Andy Tobias was eight when his father died in the crash. Pic: Chinook Justice Campaign
“All it’s done is create a huge vacuum of suspicion regarding what’s in those documents, and what does it mean about our fathers and our brothers who died in that crash,” he said.
“It feels very deceitful, it feels very unfair, and you don’t lock stuff away unless there’s something you really don’t want people to know.”
Mr Tobias said he wants to know why his father boarded an aircraft that was not airworthy, adding: “All we’re after is truth and transparency about the circumstances of that crash.”
Read more from Sky News:
Amber heat health alert as temperatures set to soar
Analysis: William’s had a lot to say – but is anyone listening?
He added: “My childhood was stolen from me because someone decided my dad and his colleagues should be put on a helicopter that was not fit for purpose.
“The MoD had a duty of care to those on board, and they failed that catastrophically by making them fly in an unairworthy aircraft with well known and documented issues and by doing so they stole their right to life.
“My mum, my brother, I and all the families deserve the truth and the MoD must repay the honour and integrity that those on board had shown in their years of service to their country.”
The families, who have formed the Chinook Justice Campaign, claim failing to order a public inquiry is a breach of the government’s human rights obligations.
Nicola Rawcliffe, whose brother Major Christopher Dockerty was killed in the crash, said she was “furious and disgusted” with the MoD’s decision.
“The MoD is continuing to deceive our families and disrespect our loved one’s memories by claiming that the many previous inquiries investigated all the facts, but we now know the aircraft was not airworthy.”
She added: “My brother was only 33 years old. He gave his life in service of his country and all we have had in return is dishonesty, deception and disdain from the Ministry of Defence.”
Major Chris Dockerty died in the crash. Pic: Tim Reid Media
An MoD spokesperson said the Mull of Kintyre crash was “a tragic accident” and “we understand that the lack of certainty about the cause of the crash has added to the distress of the families”.
“We provided a detailed and considered response to the pre-action protocol letter stating the reasons why we cannot accept the demand for establishing a new public inquiry,” the spokesperson added.
“It’s unlikely that a public inquiry would identify any new evidence or reach new conclusions on the basis of existing evidence.
“The accident has already been the subject of six inquiries and investigations, including an independent judge-led review.”
It is understood the sealed documents contain personal information relating to third party individuals and the early release of this information would breach those individuals’ data protection rights.
