Gatwick closed by drones
Discussion
Got to see some interesting resulting work on counter drone measures after this. Lots of pictures of shiny kit. Highlight of the presentation was when they got the question of did it actually work and they had to admit it didn't, which tickled me.
Still, money spent finding out what doesn't work is still useful.
Still, money spent finding out what doesn't work is still useful.
mx5nut said:
robinessex said:
Why did they need legal representation, surely the facts alone would've been enough to show the Police were up a gum tree
Alternatively they may be in prison right now with no payout and no freedom.Gatwick drones: Sussex Police 'sorry' for arrested couple
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46709...
"Paul Gait and Elaine Kirk, who were released without charge.........Giles York ( Sussex Police's chief constable ) defended the decision to hold Mr. Gait for an extended period, despite his employer saying HE WAS AT WORK DURING THE DRONE FLIGHTS.
Edited by robinessex on Sunday 14th June 19:39
robinessex said:
garyhun said:
BBC are reporting it was £55k paid to the couple and £145k charged for legal fees.
Is that correct?
Why did they need legal representation, surely the facts alone would've been enough to show the Police were up a gum tree. I never do understand how lawyers create such excessive fees either.Is that correct?
The investigation reached a different conclusion from 'no drone'.
Unless the 109 people were all mistaken / all saw a police drone (which somehow wasn't ruled out).
Although the poor couple deserve some compensation for the awful experience and exposure they went through, regardless of the precise legal right and wrongs.
Unless the 109 people were all mistaken / all saw a police drone (which somehow wasn't ruled out).
Police statement said:
A police investigation into illegal drone incursions at Gatwick Airport has concluded that at least two drones were behind the attack.
The incident, during the peak Christmas period, led to the airport being closed for 30 hours, disrupting 1,000 flights and more than 140,000 passengers.
The criminal investigation by Sussex Police, with support from national expertise, has identified, researched and ruled out 96 people ‘of interest’.
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Miller, Head of Operations Command, said: “This was a serious and deliberate criminal act designed to endanger airport operations and the safety of the travelling public.
“A drone strike can cause significant damage to an aircraft in flight and it is important to emphasise that public safety was always at the forefront of our response. No aircraft was damaged or passenger injured.
“This was an unprecedented set of circumstances for all agencies involved at a time when the police and the Government were at the early stages of assessing domestic counter drone technology.
“Equipment was quickly installed using both military and private assets to bring it to a conclusion and allow the airport to reopen. Measures now available have strengthened our capability to respond to and investigate a similar incident in the future.”
Gatwick Policing Command works with the airport and airlines to protect public safety and prevent and detect criminal activity. Overall responsibility for airspace safety rests with the airport authority and relevant Government agencies.
The police investigation has centred on 129 separate sightings of drone activity, 109 of these from credible witnesses used to working in a complex airport environment including a pilot, airport workers and airport police.
Through corroborated witness statements, it is established that at least two drones were in operation during this period and the offender, or multiple offenders, had detailed knowledge of the airport.
Witness statements show activity happened in ‘groupings’ across the three days on 12 separate occasions, varying in length from between seven and 45 minutes. On six of these occasions, witnesses clearly saw two drones operating simultaneously.
The incident was not deemed terror-related and there is no evidence to suggest it was either state-sponsored, campaign or interest-group led. No further arrests have been made.
ACC Miller said: “With support from national experts, we have carried out an exhaustive criminal investigation but, without new information coming to light, there are no further realistic lines of enquiry at this time.”
The significant police response required resources from seven UK police forces as well as national expertise in policing, government and the private sector.
The policing operation and subsequent investigation has cost £790,000 and is not expected to increase further, with the bulk of the cost relating to the operational police response. Mutual aid, taken with additional officer shifts, ensured frontline policing services in Sussex remained unaffected.
Sussex Police continues to share learning from the incident across policing and other relevant agencies both across the UK and internationally.
The response of Sussex Police to the drones incident will be a key focus of the Police & Crime Commissioner’s next Performance & Accountability Meeting (PAM) on Friday 18 October at 12 noon.
In terms of the compensation, the police appear to have avoided a court case (and the potential costs even if they win) but settling out of court. The incident, during the peak Christmas period, led to the airport being closed for 30 hours, disrupting 1,000 flights and more than 140,000 passengers.
The criminal investigation by Sussex Police, with support from national expertise, has identified, researched and ruled out 96 people ‘of interest’.
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Miller, Head of Operations Command, said: “This was a serious and deliberate criminal act designed to endanger airport operations and the safety of the travelling public.
“A drone strike can cause significant damage to an aircraft in flight and it is important to emphasise that public safety was always at the forefront of our response. No aircraft was damaged or passenger injured.
“This was an unprecedented set of circumstances for all agencies involved at a time when the police and the Government were at the early stages of assessing domestic counter drone technology.
“Equipment was quickly installed using both military and private assets to bring it to a conclusion and allow the airport to reopen. Measures now available have strengthened our capability to respond to and investigate a similar incident in the future.”
Gatwick Policing Command works with the airport and airlines to protect public safety and prevent and detect criminal activity. Overall responsibility for airspace safety rests with the airport authority and relevant Government agencies.
The police investigation has centred on 129 separate sightings of drone activity, 109 of these from credible witnesses used to working in a complex airport environment including a pilot, airport workers and airport police.
Through corroborated witness statements, it is established that at least two drones were in operation during this period and the offender, or multiple offenders, had detailed knowledge of the airport.
Witness statements show activity happened in ‘groupings’ across the three days on 12 separate occasions, varying in length from between seven and 45 minutes. On six of these occasions, witnesses clearly saw two drones operating simultaneously.
The incident was not deemed terror-related and there is no evidence to suggest it was either state-sponsored, campaign or interest-group led. No further arrests have been made.
ACC Miller said: “With support from national experts, we have carried out an exhaustive criminal investigation but, without new information coming to light, there are no further realistic lines of enquiry at this time.”
The significant police response required resources from seven UK police forces as well as national expertise in policing, government and the private sector.
The policing operation and subsequent investigation has cost £790,000 and is not expected to increase further, with the bulk of the cost relating to the operational police response. Mutual aid, taken with additional officer shifts, ensured frontline policing services in Sussex remained unaffected.
Sussex Police continues to share learning from the incident across policing and other relevant agencies both across the UK and internationally.
The response of Sussex Police to the drones incident will be a key focus of the Police & Crime Commissioner’s next Performance & Accountability Meeting (PAM) on Friday 18 October at 12 noon.
Although the poor couple deserve some compensation for the awful experience and exposure they went through, regardless of the precise legal right and wrongs.
police said:
Sussex Police has issued the following statement in response to media reports in relation to compensation paid to a couple arrested during its investigation of malicious drone attacks at Gatwick airport in December 2018:
“Sussex Police has paid £55,000 in a joint settlement to a couple arrested during a drone incident at Gatwick in 2018. The settlement was made on a no liability basis, avoiding lengthy court proceedings. We remain in discussion in relation to their request for legal costs.
“All parties agreed that the allegations of unlawful arrest and detention were matters that could only be settled through the courts.
“However, we recognise that things could have been done differently and have apologised to them for the impact of their experience.”
You can find out how the investigation concluded here.
“Sussex Police has paid £55,000 in a joint settlement to a couple arrested during a drone incident at Gatwick in 2018. The settlement was made on a no liability basis, avoiding lengthy court proceedings. We remain in discussion in relation to their request for legal costs.
“All parties agreed that the allegations of unlawful arrest and detention were matters that could only be settled through the courts.
“However, we recognise that things could have been done differently and have apologised to them for the impact of their experience.”
You can find out how the investigation concluded here.
red_slr said:
Isnt wrongful arrest compo mostly based on time you are detained?
I believe unlawful detention is time based. It may have been the case even if the police had won at court they’d end up paying more than settling outside of court.
The 36 hours’ detention aspect seems quite long on the face of it.
robinessex said:
mx5nut said:
robinessex said:
Why did they need legal representation, surely the facts alone would've been enough to show the Police were up a gum tree
Alternatively they may be in prison right now with no payout and no freedom.
ah, the good old days. Seems trivial now in comparison.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff