For information, terrorism is defined (for the 2000 Act) as follows.
To make it simpler I have transposed subsection 2 into subsection 1 to make it clearer.
There are various ways in which an act can be terrorism, so I have only included the legal elements that could apply in this case.
Terrorism Act 2000
Section 1 - Terrorism: interpretation.
(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action...
d)creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public...
[AND]
(b)the use or threat is designed to ...intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.
On this definition, terrorism covers a much wider ambit of behaviour than many would think.
Charges under this Act also modify the burden of proof in some respects and shift it onto the defendant. Such as: If an article for terror (a drone) is found in a persons home or place they routinely occupy, they have to prove they were Not in possession of it. Prosecution don't have to prove that they were. Major shift in evidential burden.
But having read this thread, the other commentator who mentioned the
Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 has a point.
The offence under Section 1(2)(b)
"...disrupt the services of ...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..."
This carries a penalty of up to Life Imprisonment.
Quick - someone - tell the Daily Mail!
If the authorities ever add up the total losses/costs I imagine they would be vast.
Towards that, the Crown Court could make a criminal bankruptcy order, that would effectively
'wipe-out' the offenders.
This case will almost certainly be called-in (their power) by the Central Criminal Court for trial at the Old Bailey.
Last edited by outlawuk; 22nd Dec 2018 at 08:00.