Families of 29 military personnel killed in a 1994 RAF helicopter crash have asked Prime Minister Andy Burnham to order a fresh, independent review of the disaster. They delivered a letter to Downing Street saying their case could be an early test of a new law — the Hillsborough law — which forces public officials to be open and honest during investigations.

The Chinook Justice Campaign (CJC) includes more than 55 family members of 25 of the 29 victims. They want a review that is separate from the Ministry of Defence (the government department in charge of the armed forces) and that has full access to all documents about whether the helicopter was safe to fly and what happened before the crash. Matt Tobias, whose father Lt Col John Tobias was killed, urged Burnham to meet the families within his first 100 days as prime minister. Tobias said the previous prime minister refused the families both a meeting and an inquiry The Guardian.

The RAF Chinook helicopter crashed on the Mull of Kintyre, a remote area in south-west Scotland, in June 1994 during a flight from Northern Ireland. Everyone on board — 29 serving military personnel — was killed. At first, the two pilots were blamed for the crash. But a 2011 inquiry cleared them of blame without finding out what actually caused it. That inquiry was ordered by Liam Fox, who was the Conservative defence secretary at the time.

Fox has since spoken out more forcefully. Around June 2026, he said there were "deep concerns" that "vital information" could have been withheld and that there was a "strong enough belief" a deliberate cover-up had taken place. Fox also said the information the Ministry of Defence gave about whether the Chinook was safe to fly was "not correct" The Guardian.

The families' appeal to Burnham comes after a legal setback. In July 2026, a High Court judge ruled that several victims' families could not sue the Ministry of Defence because too much time had passed. The judge said "cogent grounds" — strong, convincing reasons — would be needed to bring the case Sky News. The CJC said it would take the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

The families' letter to Burnham says the case could be a "test case" for the new Hillsborough law. MPs unanimously backed the law in July 2026. It creates a legally enforceable duty of candour, meaning public officials can be compelled by law to be transparent during investigations. The law was originally designed for policing and public-safety situations. Using it for a military aviation disaster from three decades ago would test how far the law can reach.

The CJC's request for full document access builds on a longer campaign. In May 2025, families demanded access to sealed documents about the disaster The Guardian. Parliament held a debate on the crash in November 2025 Hansard, and the Commons Library published a research briefing the same month House of Commons Library. A Freedom of Information request for crash records was resolved by the National Archives in February 2026.

The broader context here is a clash between an official record that has changed over time and a new law that may require a higher standard of openness. The 2011 inquiry cleared the pilots but never found the cause. Fox, the man who ordered that inquiry, is now publicly saying the Ministry of Defence's own safety information was wrong. If that information was indeed "not correct," the question is whether the new duty of candour can force a full accounting that the courts, citing procedural rules, have refused to consider.

The families are pursuing several paths at once: a political appeal to a new prime minister who has shown interest in accountability (the Hillsborough law is his own creation), a planned case at the European Court of Human Rights, and a new transparency law that has not yet been tested in this kind of situation. Whether Burnham sends the matter to an independent reviewer or relies on the Hillsborough law's duty of candour to reopen the evidence will signal how broadly the new law is meant to apply.

What gives the families' case its political weight is the combination of growing parliamentary attention, a former defence secretary's claims of withheld information, and a legal tool built for exactly these situations — where public officials are accused of failing to be transparent. The Ministry of Defence has not yet publicly responded to Fox's specific claims about incorrect safety information. Its position on a fresh independent review has not changed since the High Court ruling.

The 1994 crash remains the RAF's worst peacetime aviation disaster. Thirty-two years later, no cause has been formally determined, and the institutions involved in the original investigations now face allegations from within their own ranks.