Stansted 15 win appeal: wrong offence charged
Discussion
The use of an anti-terrorism provision introduced post Lockerbie to prosecute protesters who broke into Stansted Airport and prevented a deportation flight from leaving was incorrect, says the Lord Chief Justice sitting in the Court of Appeal.
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
This is a useful reminder to prosecutors that you have to prosecute the right offence for the behaviour. Here, the protesters could have been done for aggravated trespass (by statute trespass, usually a civil wrong, is a criminal offence in some very specific contexts) and for breach of the Airport Byelaws.
Instead the protesters were prosecuted and initially convicted of the offence of "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome", contrary to section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute.
Sections 1(1) and 1(2) provide:
"Endangering safety at aerodromes.
(1) It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—
(a) causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and
(b) endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
(2) It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—
(a) to destroy or seriously to damage—
(i) property used for the provision of any facilities at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation (including any apparatus or equipment so used), or
(ii) any aircraft which is at such an aerodrome but is not in service, or
(b) to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,
in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome."
https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/...
Lord Burnett said:
The appellants should not have been prosecuted for the extremely serious offence under section 1(2)(b) of the 1990 Act because their conduct did not satisfy the various elements of the offence. There was, in truth, no case to answer. We recognise that the various summary only offences with which the appellants were originally charged, if proved, might well not reflect the gravity of their actions. That, however, does not allow the use of an offence which aims at conduct of a different nature.
Various other arguments, such as that the protesters could invoke the (difficult to invoke) defence of necessity, were rejected. This is a useful reminder to prosecutors that you have to prosecute the right offence for the behaviour. Here, the protesters could have been done for aggravated trespass (by statute trespass, usually a civil wrong, is a criminal offence in some very specific contexts) and for breach of the Airport Byelaws.
Instead the protesters were prosecuted and initially convicted of the offence of "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome", contrary to section 1(2)(b) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, an offence which requires the consent of the Attorney General to prosecute.
Sections 1(1) and 1(2) provide:
"Endangering safety at aerodromes.
(1) It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—
(a) causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and
(b) endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.
(2) It is also, subject to subsection (4) below, an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon unlawfully and intentionally—
(a) to destroy or seriously to damage—
(i) property used for the provision of any facilities at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation (including any apparatus or equipment so used), or
(ii) any aircraft which is at such an aerodrome but is not in service, or
(b) to disrupt the services of such an aerodrome,
in such a way as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome."
I saw this yesterday and was expecting a post!
A great result for those that were defending, spotted this and thought, hang on a minute.....
I think it should be made compulsory, around the Sunday Lunch/dinner table to pick a random Judgement from bailii and discuss. The only rule is you cant say ‘I concur’
A great result for those that were defending, spotted this and thought, hang on a minute.....
I think it should be made compulsory, around the Sunday Lunch/dinner table to pick a random Judgement from bailii and discuss. The only rule is you cant say ‘I concur’
There is probably a 2017 mega ranty thread about this in N,P,&E. The posters there will be sad that the decision was not summary execution for all fifteen.
PS:
"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life."
(Lewis Carroll)
PS:
"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life."
(Lewis Carroll)
CoolHands said:
I can't it's all too complicated for me. But in terms of plain english one would have thought "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome" which is what they did, would be found guilty!
Are you an adult, that can read?Expand yourself, and your mind. Read it. Lots of things appear too complicated for me, sometimes too. But then theres a little itch, in my brain that says to me, why? What? Where?
And ill have a look, a go, try to understand it.
CoolHands said:
I can't it's all too complicated for me. But in terms of plain english one would have thought "intentional disruption of services at an aerodrome" which is what they did, would be found guilty!
So why criticise a thing that you do not understand? "I do not understand the law" does not mean "the law is an ass". The offence contains several ingredients. These are set out in the section of the Act relied on by the prosecution. The ingredients of the offence were not all present.
The section exists to implement anti terrorism measures. This was an example of the use of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or, as The Times* famously put it in another context (Rolling Stones drugs bust) "Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?"
* Editorial written by William Rees-Mogg, father of the much less talented Jacob.
CoolHands said:
I cannot tell a lie, I did not, your Honour. Just the headlines
Serious life lesson: do not use headlines to from an opinion on any subject.The judgment is in fact written (almost entirely) in plain English. Give it a try! Curiosity is contagious.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 30th January 10:46
A couple of technical terms -
"ejusdem generis" is Latin and means "of the same kind". It's shorthand for an approach to interpreting a statute that determines the meaning of general things by reference to a list of more specific things. For example: in "cars, bicycles, lorries, and other vehicles", the word vehicles there excludes boats, because it is construed ejusdem generis with the listed land based transport devices.
"travaux preparatoires" is French and means "preparatory works". It refers to the preliminary drafts and discussion documents that lead up to an international agreement.
"ejusdem generis" is Latin and means "of the same kind". It's shorthand for an approach to interpreting a statute that determines the meaning of general things by reference to a list of more specific things. For example: in "cars, bicycles, lorries, and other vehicles", the word vehicles there excludes boats, because it is construed ejusdem generis with the listed land based transport devices.
"travaux preparatoires" is French and means "preparatory works". It refers to the preliminary drafts and discussion documents that lead up to an international agreement.
Breadvan72 said:
There is probably a 2017 mega ranty thread about this in N,P,&E. The posters there will be sad that the decision was not summary execution for all fifteen.
PS:
"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life."
(Lewis Carroll)
I’ll play.PS:
"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law,
And argued each case with my wife;
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life."
(Lewis Carroll)
Just for fun.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff