Remmington
Don't bother reading this post. You'll find it very boring
RatherBeFlying
It would be difficult (not necessarily impossible) to argue that what the Captain said or didn't say in his PA about smoking is relevant to guilt or not of any offence(s).
The question for the Court at that stage will be: Has the prosecution proved the defendant's guilt of the offence(s) charged? Not: Why did he behave in that way?
The second question is relevant to punishment if he is convicted but, even if the passengers' version is correct, it's a very tricky argument to advance. 'The defendant only behaved as he did because he thought the crew applied the law re smoking too strictly? Or because he didn't like what the Captain intended to do on arrival at Glasgow?
I can't see a Court regarding that as mitigation if anyone is convicted of threatening / assaulting Cabin Crew responsible for the safety an airliner full of passengers!
Miller
You might, repeat might just about have an arguable point if the incident had taken place after the aircraft had landed at Glasgow, and if the passengers had been detained. But it didn't. It took place during flight when nobody was being detained unlawfully. What can a defendant say if he used threats or force? I only used reasonable force to try to escape so that I wouldn't be unlawfully detained at Glasgow? At 35,000'? If anyone felt aggrieved, the proper course was take it up with the airline later, not take it out on the Cabin Crew during the flight.
In summary, the issues for a court to decide will be:
(1) Are we satisfied, on the evidence presented, that the defendant did what the prosecution say he did?
If not, that's the end of the matter.
If yes,
(2) Does what he did amount to the offence charged?
If no, defendant acquitted. If yes, conviction and appropriate punishment.