the causes of death—irrespective of the other investigations of the police and the possibility of later criminal charges. A second part of the inquest—establishing the responsibility of the crash and making safety recommendations—would be discussed at a later stage. When Knapman re-opened the inquest on 23 April 1990, he was critical of the DPP for taking eight months to decide on whether to bring criminal charges against anyone, which meant that a full inquest could not take place in case it prejudiced any future trial. The inquest was, in effect, a series of what the legal scholar Hazel Hartley calls "mini inquests", one each for each of the 51 bodies. On 26 April the DPP stepped in to stop the inquest, stating that charges would now be brought against Henderson. Because of his decision to stop the inquest, the information on how the collision occurred, who was to blame or what could be done to ensure it could not be repeated, was not considered. Henderson was charged under the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 for failing to have an effective lookout on the vessel. The case against him opened on 4 April 1991 at the Old Bailey and ran to 14 April. The jury failed to reach a decision; the DPP decided that a retrial would be in the public interest. This took place between 17 and 31 July the same year; it again ended with a hung jury. At the end of July 1991 Ivor , the husband of one of the victims, began a private prosecution for manslaughter against four directors of South Coast Shipping Company, the owners of Bowbelle, and corporate manslaughter against the South Coast Shipping Company. Two weeks later the Transport Secretary, Malcolm Rifkind, took the decision to publish the MAIB Report, repeating that because an appropriate body had undertaken an investigation, there was no requirement to have a public inquiry. Families of the victims were angry with the move, pointing out that Rifkind had delayed publication of the report on the basis that publication could prejudice the case against Henderson, but that the publication could now jeopardise private prosecution. The DPP demanded that hand over the papers for the case, stating he would take it over, then drop it; refused to comply, stating that it was out of the remit of the DPP, and that it was for a magistrates' court to decide if the