Work Related Deaths
Accident Investigation Branches (AIBs)
There are three Accident Investigation Branches (AIBs):
- Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) - has responsibility for investigating rail accidents and incidents on the UK's railways
- Marine Accident Investigation Branch (MAIB) has responsibility for examining and investigating all types of marine accidents to or on board UK ships worldwide, and other ships in UK territorial waters
- Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) has responsibility for investigating civil aircraft accidents and serious incidents within the UK
Although each AIB is part of the Department for Transport, they function independently. The Chief Inspector of each AIB reports directly to the Secretary of State on safety matters. The purpose of each of the three AIBs is to establish the causes of accidents and incidents in their relevant transport modes. The AIBs' sole objective is to investigate the causes of incidents so as to prevent a future recurrence and improve public safety. Unlike with a criminal prosecution, the purpose of an AIB investigation is not to apportion blame or liability.
The CPS has established channels for liaison with the AIBs and there is a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CPS and the three AIBs. This was created in 2005 and updated on 30th October 2008 (an updated version should be published later this year). Please refer to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for further information.
The MOU describes the roles and responsibilities of each of the AIBs and the principles of information sharing, destructive testing of evidence and the processes surrounding the publication of the AIB report of an incident. Its aim is to ensure the existence of effective investigation and decision making processes whilst, at the same time, maintaining the independence of all parties and reinforcing the role of the AIBs as the guardians of public safety.
The AIBs fiercely defend their independence from the prosecuting authorities, in particular so as not to undermine the principle that witnesses should be able to talk openly to an AIB, in the interests of public safety, without fear of incrimination.
A safety investigation undertaken by an AIB takes precedence over a criminal investigation. AIBs have powers to ensure that their investigations are not obstructed and that their actions are afforded priority, for example, at the scene of an incident. AIBs work on very different principles to the police and CPS; they are not enforcing authorities, they have significant powers and do not apportion blame.
Of particular relevance is the fact that AIBs are precluded from disclosing the names of those witnesses who have given statements to them or from providing a copy of the statement to anyone else, including the police and CPS, unless the witness consents. There are also restrictions on disclosing information recorded in 'black box' voice recorders. This will inevitably impact upon our prosecutions; for example, witnesses may end up providing two statements, one to the AIB (and since blame is not in issue, and confidentiality is assured, the witness can speak freely) and the second to the police or other investigator (such as the Health and Safety Executive) (where the witness may face prosecution or where there might be recriminations if the witness implicates his employer, resulting, perhaps, in a less than frank account). This, in turn, has implications for credibility and disclosure, and means that we may be reviewing a case from a position of ignorance. (We can seek disclosure 'in the interests of justice' in the High Court - see the respective governing regulations referred to in the MOU for the authorities and procedures to follow.)
AIBs also have powers in relation to the destructive testing of real evidence in the interests of public safety, notwithstanding the needs of the prosecuting authorities to produce best evidence at court.
A Summary of the MOU
There is a stated general agreement that the AIBs will share all evidence and factual information with the CPS other than their own opinions or analysis and subject to the specific legislative bars.
Witnesses giving a statement to an AIB will be given a copy of the statement and told that they may supply it to the prosecuting authorities if they wish.
Technical information will be shared with the CPS, although there are exemptions for 'black box' voice recorders that are contained in statute.
Real evidence will not be subjected to destructive testing by an AIB without consultation with the CPS and efforts will be made to reach agreement over the nature and timing of the testing and how it should be recorded.
An advance copy of the AIB report may be provided and the CPS will be given an opportunity to make comments, for example, about the timing of publication in relation to the trial date.
The MOU creates a mechanism for regular liaison between the parties by requiring a review every three years.
Principal revisions
The revised MOU (2008) differs from the original MOU in several significant respects. The MOU will now be reviewed every three years. The original statement expressing general agreement to share all evidence and information has been refined, issues surrounding the confidentiality of materials shared have been more clearly stated, the paragraphs on the destructive testing of evidence have been extensively revised to be more prescriptive and the paragraphs that deal with the publication of the AIB report and the period leading up to it have been clarified.
