I am not aware of an unsuccesful prosecution where reckless endangerment was charged for shining a light/l@ser. The new offence may increase the number of charges/convictions but not the conviction rate.
Further, Article 222 provides:
222. A person must not in the United Kingdom direct or shine any light at any aircraft in flight so as to dazzle or distract the pilot of the aircraft.
If the requirement for the offence is "..so as to dazzle or distract the pilot..." would this not in all probability amount to reckless or negligent endangerment in any event?
Is there anyone on Pprune who would disagree with the proposition that targeting a laser at a helicopter or fixed wing cockpit is inherently dangerous and therefore likely to endanger the safety of that aircraft? Thus we seek to discourage it.
The first principle is that a person who is tempted to blind a pilot with a high powered light or l@ser is a moron to begin with. Previously some (although I accept not all) of the morons who were tempted to do it might just have been deterred by the likelihood that, if caught, they would go to prison. Now the greatest risk is a fine. The point I was making was simply that in terms of deterrence (and in the light of Court of Appeal judgements as to the appropriate level of sentence) the introduction of this offence does virtually nothing to enhance avaiation safety.
As an example
Most people reading this will have exceeded the speed limit at some point. Why? It is against the law but the penalty, a fine and points on the licence. (Obviously the more points a motorist has the less they may be inclined to break the speed limit).
Significantly fewer will drink and drive. Why? Fine plus automatic disqualification.
Fewer still will, with a previous drink drive conviction, drink and drive again. Why? Fine plus real risk of prison and much longer disqualification.
The greater the known penalty the less the temptation. Simples
Last edited by Legalapproach; 14th Jan 2010 at 06:29.