Is it This Piece ?

PDR

It is, thank-you. Sorry, I realise now it was already on the thread.

I suspect the insurance needs "someone" to blame, so the authorities are playing along with the "pin the tail on the donkey" part of the fun, and Mr Henderson has ended up with the tail ...

I doubt it will go anywhere ... they'll try someone else and then give up ..

I disagree, Henderson got the "job" from Mckay it seems. And Henderson elected to send a PPL pilot to do a commercial job.
It does appear D.I was being paid per hour to fly plus all expenses. The question is who contacted D.I and told him to do this "job", that he was not qualified to do? Who supplied him the airplane to fly?
I am guessing D.H got the job to make sure Sala would be in Cardiff on time.

The BBC video shows him with the crashed airplane, so there is some connection there for sure. McKay has planted the blame with D.H it seems, although the McKays are probably the ones who put "commercial" pressure on the flight to be completed on time, to make sure Sala would be on time in Cardiff.
But the one who should have said stop, seems to be D.H, as he would have known D.I was not a Commercial Pilot, did not have an Instrument rating.

Arrest by police does not at this stage mean any more than gathering of evidence from any suspect who may have involvement in a criminal act. It is at the charging stage that more detailed information will be made public. All that is known so far is that the Mckay duo and Henderson have been mentioned in various press articles as candidates for involvement. For all we know the owners of the aircraft may also be on the list of likely candidates for a tete a tete under the lamp.
I wonder if anyone have seen or heard of cops sniffing around asking questions around various airfields and hangars, calling to see log books, tech records and airfield movement records.

Thanks, got it now. The post was a separate thread that was merged into this one after my reply, so I didn't have the history.

I wonder why they felt the need to arrest him rather than interview him on a voluntary basis though?

I gather the usual reason for that is where someone declines to volunteer to help the police with their enquiries, but obviously I have no idea whether that is the case here.

PDR

"He told me he had a commercial licence and i had no reason to disbelieve him given the other work he was lnown to be doing...obviously as PIC it would then be his duty to ensure the safe conduct of the flight and i gave him no pressure to do otherwise.."

There are two reasons for inviting an individual to a voluntary rather than a "standard" interview:

a. The criteria for arrest may not have been met, i.e. the police believe that you may have been involved in the matter under investigation but have insufficient evidence to carry out an arrest.
b. They are aware that the investigation may be lenghty; almost certainly so in this case: and wish to avoid the obligations placed upon them when dealing with persons under arrest.

If it was considered on the evidence available that any charges were likely to arise from contraventions of the ANO then it is quite likely that the voluntary route would have been adopted. This would have been infuenced by the fact the that investigating body would have been the CAA and all interviews carried out by them are voluntary, although under caution and recorded.

It would be reasonable to assume that given the facts available to them the police decided to investigate the matter as manslaughter and thus provided that the evidential test was met made and an arrest before proceeding with a standard interview. It is possible that the arrest may have occurred after an initial voluntary attendance at the police station and following a voluntary interview. However if that was the case I would have expected to see some reference to the process in the police statement.

None of the above implies guilt on the part of the arrested party. Evidence to justify arrest is of a different standard to that required to lay charges. The police may arrest to further efficient investigation, gather and preserve evidence, which they will have to disclose in the event of charges being laid. We do not know how far down the inestigative route they have gone.

YS

Yellowsun, not entirely accurate I'm afraid.
The grounds to arrest need be no more than a suspicion an offence has been, or is about to be committed.
However, in order to arrest the Police have to satisfy themselves that there is a necessity.
That may be to prevent harm/ damage or loss,
prevent further offences, prevent interference with a witness etc, to prevent disappearance, to allow for a statutory power to be enforced ie samples being taken or to allow for prompt and effective investigation.

That would be a good basis for defence, maybe even "he showed me a commercial license that was in his name and valid, with a suitable medical, I suspect it was lost in the crash" ... part of the trouble with this occupation is that a lot of the records are paper, and must be carried on the flight .. resulting in loss when everything goes wrong.

The thing is maybe its true. I know many like to adopt positions on the moral high ground but just maybe he really was assured the pilot was qualified and that pilot suggested he would actually pay towards the flight.

Voluntary basis : Assisting police with their inquiries.
Arrest : Formal process to collect evidence which may lead to charge, trial and use of evidence .

The person arrested may have been previously been interviewed informally, ie on a voluntary basis.

Nevertheless the law is most concerned that there should be reasonable grounds for arrest, as the person is detained in police custody for a defined period of time and therefore loss of liberty is involved. Arrest and custody by police is never a pleasant experience, especially for those who have no previous experience of it.

Voluntary interviews are increasingly used to deal with suspects. 'Helping police with their enquiries' is a nice phrase to avoid offending anyone. It's pretty meaningless.

It's difficult to avoid the view that it's taken the legal authorities half a year to come to exactly the same point that this thread did within a couple of days ....

Plenty meaningful if one happens to be invited to have a bit of a chat with the CID at the local cop shop, would have been my thought. Especially if you had been asked to bring along your mobile phone and lap top,ipad and maybe a few bank, credit card statements, and the like, also. And if the answer to every little question is an innocent "no comment", the chances are the next visit is likely not to be a friendly invitation.

Everyone is entitled to reply as they see fit including "No comment". The court can only draw an inference from that in certain circumstances.