MPs have called for changes to the law after police were refused access to potentially crucial information about the cause of the Shoreham Airshow crash.

Shadow transport minister Andy McDonald told The Argus it was "deeply concerning" Sussex Police officers investigating the tragedy were being hindered in their work after a High Court ruling yesterday.

The force took the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) to court in order to see records about the sequence of events leading to the deaths of 11 men on August 22 last year.

The AAIB has video footage from the cockpit, statements made by pilot Andrew Hill in interviews and details of experiments and tests carried out after the Hawker Hunter crashed on to the A27.

But under UK and European law, this material cannot be disclosed to a third party without permission from a High Court judge.

This was the first case of its kind in the country and the legal restrictions have never before been tested in this way.

Justice Rabinder Singh yesterday refused officers access to the statements and details of experiments but allowed them to view the video footage.

Andy McDonald, the shadow secretary for transport, said: "It is deeply concerning investigating police officers should be hindered in this way. They should have access to any materials necessary to bring justice to the families of those who tragically lost their lives. Far too often families find themselves in an uphill struggle to establish the facts of what happened to their loved ones.

"This case is yet another challenge to the principle of access to justice. The law must be reviewed to ensure a situation such as this doesn't arise again."

His thoughts were echoed by Brighton Pavilion MP Caroline Lucas and Hove MP Peter Kyle.

Ms Lucas said: "This judgment appears to hinder a crucial police investigation into this tragic incident, and it could set a worrying precedent. We need an open justice system that best learns from the past and prevents tragedies like this occurring."

Mr Kyle said: "We are testing the boundaries of this law but that shouldn’t prohibit giving the families of victims the justice they need. If they can’t sort this out then maybe the law needs to be re-examined.

"What I’d expect of public servants is that they would get into a room and find a way through that prioritises the needs of victims and is sensitive to the needs of regulators. My instinct at this time is to side with the police and the victims in that the needs of our community and families who have lost loved ones must come first."

But James Healy-Pratt, the head of aviation at Stewarts Law lawyer who is representing six victims' families, welcomed the judgment as a "significant development" which he hoped would speed up the investigation.

He added: "There are no real surprises here and this is the expected result."

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz said the ruling would allow his team to progress the investigation, adding: "We understand legally this case is without precedent in England and Wales and we accept the reasons why our request has not been granted in full.

"As we have said before, this is an extraordinarily complex investigation, but we remain committed to finding answers for the families and friends of those who died."

RED TAPE HINDERING THE PURSUIT OF JUSTICE

IN his judgment, and in accordance with current law, Justice Rabinder Singh was striking a balance between improving safety in the aviation industry and handing police the information they needed to further their investigation.

The law protecting certain material gathered by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) was introduced decades ago so those with information about a crash could come forward and speak freely of the circumstances without fear of prosecution.

It is something experts in the aviation industry say is vital in order to learn from mistakes and improve safety. But for police investigating the deaths of 11 people it is simply red tape hindering their pursuit of justice, MPs have said.

Detective Chief Inspector Paul Rymarz told the coroner at a pre-inquest review in March there had been a “significant delay” in obtaining potential evidence for the case because of the legislation.

He was referring to regulation 18 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1996 – the legislation enforcing the non-disclosure rules which has protected details disclosed by members of the aviation industry for decades. It is also recognised by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

The Crown Prosecution and the air, marine and rail accidents investigation branches (AIBs) also have a written agreement called a memorandum of understanding to ensure any criminal investigation is effective while “reinforcing the role of the AIBs as the guardians of public safety when investigating transport accidents and incidents.”

There is no precedent for this sort of case under UK or European law. Counsel involved in the case could only discover three other cases across the world where applications of this nature were considered: in Australia in 1975 after two aeroplanes crashed, in New Zealand in 1997 after four passengers and a flight attendant died in a crash when the flight crew survived and in Canada in 2010 when it was requested a cockpit voice recording was requested for a civil case.

Hove MP Peter Kyle said: “I do believe that Sussex Police have the skills and sensitivity to find a way forward that takes into account the concerns of regulators.

“My instinct is Sussex Police are highly sensitive to the balancing act of undertaking a criminal investigation into the loss of 11 lives and making sure victims and their families get the justice they deserve, while at the same being aware of the need for a long-term regulatory environment to have its own process.”

Justice Singh said allowing police access to the statements made by Andy Hill would cause a “serious and obvious chilling effect which would tend to deter people from answering questions by the AAIB with the candour which is necessary. This would seriously hamper future accident investigations and protection of public safety by the learning of lessons which may help prevent similar accidents.”

He also resisted because AAIB statements are not given under caution.

He also denied access to details of experiments and tests because the reports were likely to be made public in the AAIB’s final findings and because there was “no reason why the police could not themselves investigate”.

But he did grant access to the film footage, adding: “I am satisfied the balance falls in favour of disclosure rather than against it. The cameras were installed not only on a voluntary basis but for leisure and private commercial reasons.”

Former AAIB investigator Phil Giles said the video footage will be enough to provide police with the information they need.

The 75-year-old, of Emsworth, who worked for the organisation for 16 years and is now an industry adviser, said: “This will show the controls and the actions of the pilot so they can see themselves what happened. If they have the footage the statements will be of little use to them.”

Mr Giles said investigators are obliged to inform the police of any criminality and disclosure of some records are beginning to “creep in” as prosecutions after a crash are becoming more “the norm”.

Although, he said, it looks unlikely the law in the UK would need to change any time soon.

He added: “In France the police are much more involved in the investigation right from the start. They even escort recordings and footage to the laboratory.”

Yesterday a police spokesman said the investigation had continued while the force awaited the decision.

The AAIB’s final crash report is expected later this year. James Healy-Pratt, head of aviation at Stewarts Law and a lawyer representing six of the victims’ families, said: “It is a balancing of trust between having a safety culture and a blame culture. We are hoping for some real progress for victims’ families by November 21 – the date of the next pre-inquest review – and conclusion of the entire investigation by 2018.”

THE PILOT AT CENTRE OF DISASTER INVESTIGATION

PILOT Andy Hill has been at the centre of the police investigation into the Shoreham Airshow disaster which claimed the lives of 11 men one year ago.

He spent weeks in an induced coma but miraculously survived and has been recovering.

He was first spotted on his feet again last October when he was pictured walking in jeans and denim shirt, carrying a water bottle.

He was interviewed voluntarily under caution by police last December. He was not arrested. Then five months after the August 22 tragedy, images emerged of him driving a £40,000 Porsche Boxster.

We reported earlier this summer the 52-year-old was being investigated over possible manslaughter charges. The pilot has been told his conduct is also being looked into on suspicion he endangered lives under strict air navigation laws.

He is a former British Airways captain, a skilled aerobatic flyer who was a regular at airshows up and down the country.

He is an experienced former RAF instructor with more than 12,000 hours of flying experience.

Mr Hill has flown for years, having worked as a light aircraft test pilot, an RAF Harrier GR7 instructor, a commercial pilot captaining Airbus planes and as a stunt and as an aerobatic display pilot. He has also worked as a pilot offering flight experiences to the public for the company Ultimate High.