Originally Posted by
DaveReidUK
You appear to have missed the point completely.
The argument isn't about whether he was innocent, but about what exactly he was guilty of (and what would therefore be a proportionate sentence).
Basil's post above sums it up well.
I don't feel good disagreeing somewhat with DaveReidUK, and with Basil (post #2). PPRune has hosted me as an lurker and outsider for years now, and I am not comfortable with the feeling that I might be thought to be discourteous. My profile refers for my background.
On the other hand, I also have made a misleading error and must concede this to DaveReidUK.
All that one has is the BBC news report, and it appears that the charge was brought under the Criminal Damage Act. The Crown Prosecution Service is enjoined to charge as arson an alleged offence against sec. 1 -- see
Criminal Damage: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Section 1(2) of the Act makes it an offence to destroy or damage property intending thereby to endanger the life of another, or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered (Archbold 23-13).
If the damage is committed by fire, the offence is charged as arson with intent or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered
It appears that this was what the conviction was for. Basil's distinctions are thus not material, and the criminal intention required by the Act was proved.
Stupidly, I did not read the BBC report. Press reports are notoriously unreliable, and I assumed that he was charged with at least two other offences -- smoking where this was prohibited, and with disobeying the lawful orders of the crew. I don't have ready access to the law (I suspect the ANO) down in Hoerikwaggo and so I can't give references, but I understand that these are two offences which aircrew are well aware of.
I wish that we could see the charge sheet. I suspect that these other offences will also appear on it.
The fact that there was an actual fire seems to be the reason why the charge of arson was brought. If there had been no fire, then the other two charges would still have been proper. He may have been convicted of them also, but this was not mentioned in the news report.
As for the sentence, I remain hardhearted and uncontrite. If the other charges were also brought, they must have aggravated the matter as they constitute the context for the arson. I challenge any aircrew to state that they would wish that the matter were otherwise and would take a more lenient view!