There is a lot of anecdotal evidence that the AAIB avoids publishing things which would be subject to legal action.
However they are a lot more professional than say the BEA 
There are many, including judges, who believe that the regulator should not also be the prosecutor.
flybymike wrote:
the regulator should not also be the prosecutor
Specifically the CAA, or does this cover the State, local authorities etc?
In my experience, generally local authorities, who are regulators, make very good and fair prosecutors.
I have to be careful what I say, but I could (I won’t, but I could) name several organisations whom I believe should not be allowed to prosecute, but none of them is a regulator as such.
I wonder if the real problem is more that there are some organisations who should not be allowed to prosecute, but that is not because they are or are not a regulator.
The legal situation in Scotland is different. The Procurator Fiscal prosecutes. The CAA can, but could have costs against them. The Procurator Fiscal has successfully prosecuted when the CAA has decided to take no action.
P S. As the OP, it was a complete mess-up.
The ATC wasn’t sure, but thought it safer to notify the police.
The dispatcher, having a traffic car near, and not busy, sent it.
The traffic cop was trained to investigate road accidents. Unusually he found a qualified engineer already there, certifying there was no mechanical cause. And a huge wide runway.
The passenger was a psychiatric nurse, and could confirm the pilot hadn’t lost consciousness. (Pilot was a forensic psychologist, soon to become her husband.)
So he felt he had to get an explanation.
but I could) name several organisations whom I believe should not be allowed to prosecute, but none of them is a regulator as such.
You must be thinking of the notorious RSPCA 
You must be thinking of the notorious RSPCA
Emphatically not.
Several countries have massive problems with this as due to legislation the AAIB’s are required to give full access to their amassed data to the prosecution offices, even though that is against the spirit and rulings of ICAO Annex 13. Even if some AAIB’s have found ways around this, at least the final reports are obviously available to them and WILL be used to prosecute at will. One has to be very careful even with the interviews with AAIB’s these days and in any case never agree to open the information given to any prosecuters office (most AAIB’s today ask!). Whenever dealing with a prosecutor, it is absolutely essential to have a aviation savvy lawyer present!
This sordid thing really has a bad impact on aviation safety as nobody in his right mind will openly discuss what they have done anymore with AAIB people… But for some it is more important to sentence paricipants then to prevent accidents.
But for some it is more important to sentence paricipants then to prevent accidents.
Who?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Even if some AAIB’s have found ways around this, at least the final reports are obviously available to them and WILL be used to prosecute at will
The police cannot use this as part of the prosecution, hence the police makes it’s own investigation, but it can be used in a civil case as far as I know (but so can just about anything under the moon).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
most AAIB’s today ask!
Who?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Whenever dealing with a prosecutor, it is absolutely essential to have a aviation savvy lawyer present!
Maybe, but the police (or whoever prosecutes) is not likely to do so unless the evidence is rather obvious – you have actually done something against the law or been reckless or something and hurt/put in danger somebody else. What can a lawyer do that will cost you less than to pay a fine? If you have done nothing wrong, it’s a different situation.
Two years ago, I did a safe glider landout in a remote field not far from Kinross (later I heard from a local coast guard that someone saw the landing from the air and called for “mayday” thinking it is was a GA crash).
On the practical side, I was happy to see the police arriving in the “supposed crash scene” as it helped calming down the land owner,
I actually, found it easy to explain what happened to them than to the land owner, but probably a question of my pick of the day
On the legal side, asking what rights police have at an aircraft crash scene is the same as what rights DfT has on aviation rules? actually everything, it is just they don’t have expertise, interest and day to day resources to put the nose on it, so most of time you deal with national regulators
If someone on the ground is injured, I can guarantee you that the actual civil/criminal followings are not be part of the CAA safety mandate or aviation rules…
By contract in some countries, from experience a lot of civil aviation accidents were investigated and prosecuted by military
