This
"purpose" is capable of covering any sort
of accident investigation from, at one end of the
spectrum, routine 'slips and trips' or other minor
incidents in the work place, to, at the other, accident
investigations which are reserved to specific bodies
dedicated to such matters. As examples of the latter:
| • |
the
Health and Safety Commission and Executive play
an important role in investigating accidents
under Part I of the Health and Safety at Work
etc Act 1974; |
| • |
the Air Accident Investigation Branch and Marine
Accident Investigation Branches of the Department
for Transport are responsible for investigating
the causes of air and shipping accidents respectively
(a Rail Accident Investigation Branch is due
to become operational in spring 2005); |
| • |
the police and local authorities also play an
important role in investigating road traffic
accidents |
All
accident investigations have in common the aim of
improving safety by the establishment of the causes
of accidents and subsequently making recommendations
or reports with the aim of improving safety. It
is important to note that there is a strong public
interest in establishing the cause of accidents
- and the more serious the accident, the greater
is likely to be the public interest. A disclosure
likely to prejudice the exercise by a public authority
of its functions for this purpose, therefore, would
to that extent be contrary to the public interest.
The Air and Marine and future Rail Accident Investigation
Branches (the AIBs) are required to determine the
causes of accidents in order to learn lessons to
prevent future accidents. To perform this function,
accident investigators must be able to form a complete
and independent view about the root causes of accidents.
Statutory provisions (draft provisions in the case
of the RAIB) prohibit the disclosure of information
by the AIBs and help to achieve that independence
(and to that extent section 44 of the FOIA needs
to be considered). The policy underlying that is
that unrestricted and premature disclosure can lead
to speculative and unjustified conclusions about
the causes of an accident and hence pressure for
action that may be ineffective or inappropriate;
as a result, the root causes of the accident, and
the means of preventing them in future, may not
be properly addressed. Unrestricted disclosure which
is likely to prejudice the exercise by the AIBs
of their functions will to that extent be contrary
to the public interest.
Some of the information collected by AIB investigators
is, for a variety of reasons (e.g personal, commercially
sensitive, technically advanced, etc.) provided
in confidence specifically to assist the investigation.
The disclosure of such information beyond the direct
requirements of the investigation is likely to result
in reduced co-operation from such sources in the
future (there is another overlap here with the exemptions
in sections 30(2) (information obtained/recorded
by investigating authorities from confidential sources),
40 (personal information, 41 (information provided
in confidence) and 43 (commercial interests). Again,
such disclosures could prejudice the exercise by
the AIBs of their functions and be contrary to the
public interest. There may also be occasions where
national security/defence exemptions will be relevant
to information held by the AIBs.
But it is also important to recognise the public
interest in the transparency of accident investigations.
Particularly to the extent that the investigation
is intended to reassure public opinion and restore
confidence in public safety, there will be a corresponding
public interest in demonstrating the competence
of the investigation. For this reason, investigating
authorities will seek to be as open as possible
in ensuring that families of victims, those directly
affected, and where appropriate the public are kept
informed of the broad progress of investigations.
In many cases a report or findings will be published
(and in this context sections 21 and 22 may need
to be considered).
Although this "purpose" focuses on ascertaining
the causes of an accident, accident investigations
are capable of serving more than one purpose. And
public bodies other than the AIBs may simultaneously
be undertaking investigations with a view to apportioning
responsibility (including legal responsibility)
for an accident. Because of that, other exemptions
likely to be relevant
