I don't think the defence of " The captain upset me with his Public Address announcment" is going to be much of a defense.
Well, it depends what is said. And here the airline and passengers appear to give different accounts.
According to the airline the Captain announces that the person responsible for smoking will be handed over to police on arrival at Glasgow,
According to the passengers the Captain says that unless someone owns up to smoking then the passengers will be kept on the ground at Glasgow (pending the arrival of the police?).
As I have said earlier I have no problem with the airline version. If, however, the passenger version is correct then I would have great problems. You simply cannot hold innocent people without good reason. Does one or more persons smoking fall into that category. In addition why make such an announcement in mid-air?
Now, along with others I have asked what exactly was said by the Captain to the passengers to clear this up. I also accepted though that this might not be possible so I asked another question - was the person identified as smoking handed over to police at Cardiff.
Why is this relevant? Because if you accept the airline account it seems clear that someone was identified as an offender. The passengers on the other hand say that the captain wanted someone to own up failing which they would all be kept on the ground at Glasgow. To my mind such an announcement turns an aircraft from a means of transport into a means of confinement.
I have a problem with that and in common with others I think a court would have problems with that.