What ever happened to the Long Marston "Murder"

[ponshus]

Does anyone know what happened about the incident early last year where a hunt supporter was killed by a gyrocopter at Long Marston and the pilot was charged with murder?

It seems to have gone very quiet and there was me thinking justice must be seen to be done.

[Contacttower]

Birmingham Mail - News - Top Stories - Man in court over gyrocopter murder of hunt supporter at Long Marston airfield (http://www.birminghammail.net/news/top-stories/2009/03/24/man-in-court-over-gyrocopter-murder-of-hunt-supporter-at-long-marston-airfield-97319-23220312/)

Is the last reference I can find. That was almost a year ago now so I would assume that there is either a trial ongoing or it has ended already.

Sorry correction, forget the above I've found something more recent...

Birmingham Post - News - West Midlands News - Warwickshire man denies killing hunt supporter (http://www.birminghampost.net/news/west-midlands-news/2009/10/06/warwickshire-man-denies-killing-hunt-supporter-65233-24859563/)

Sounds like his trial starts on Monday.

[onetrack]

The wheels of justice turn slowly as the old saying goes - and often, in many jurisdictions, it can be two or more years before serious charges come to trial.
The delay is dependent on the load on the courts, in relation to cases waiting to be heard; whether there is an adequate number of judicial officers for the jurisdiction - and it is also dependent on the police gathering, collating and examining evidence, that they regard is sufficient to satisfy them, that they have a solid case to argue.
Police have to find and interview witnesses, examine relationships, follow up lines of inquiry, get exhibits tested/examined by independent third parties (gyro examination), and so on.
This is an interesting case, and the Crown will have to prove that the gyrocopter owner was deliberate in his actions that ended up with the victim being killed, to be able to prove a charge of murder.
I find it interesting that the gyrocopter owner is charged with murder, rather than manslaughter, as is often the case, because most incidents like this are usually the result of inflamed personalities clashing, and the tensions escalating, until basic unintentional death occurs.
To prove murder, it would need the police to confirm that the gyrocopter owner had intent to kill the victim, not just frighten him. It would appear, that just from the case being instigated, there must have been some very aggressive actions, on the part of the gyrocopter owner, towards the victim.

[Humaround]

What Onetrack says is right. Without access to the evidence it is pure speculation but I have seen many cases start with a murder charge and end with a Manslaughter conviction. I'd be surprised if this doesn't happen here (if indeed there is even an actual manslaughter conviction - probably the defence will claim it was an accident, which would not support a manslaughter conviction).

[ponshus]

Thank you Contacttower - my overwrought imagination was begining to suspect some sort of conspiracy. Lets see what happens.
Best wishes

[The Old Fat One]

According to that newspaper article he has pleaded not guilty to manslaughter, so - assuming it is correct - the charge has already been"downgraded".

Makes sense...I can't see how they could have made a murder charge stick in the circumstances.

[Mixed Up]

The BBC suggests he was previously charged with manslaughter but this has now been changed to what appears to be a lesser charge:


pleaded not guilty to a new charge of the manslaughter of Trevor Morse by gross negligence.

[patowalker]

BBC News - Hunt supporter died 'instantly' from gyrocopter blade (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8546071.stm)

[Maoraigh1]

If you do that with a train, they call it suicide.

[robin]

I'm afraid that doesn't help.

If you stand in front of a train it doesn't have anywhere else to go. A car or a taxying aircraft can turn or choose not to move.

No matter how stupid someone might be to stand in front of a whirling prop, the pilot has a choice whether or not to move, or to shut down and thump the obstruction.

The problem here is how it will be interpreted by the jurors.

[coldair]

The main thread is running here ;

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/365357-gyrocopter-involved-murder-charge.html

[Torque Tonight]

Not guilty. Interesting result. Even if not convicted of murder or manslaughter I would have thought there'd be an appropriate charge under the ANO. Without seeing the video (not something I have any desire to do) I guess the general public are unlikely to ever know exactly what happened.

BBC News - Gyrocopter pilot cleared over huntsman death (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/coventry_warwickshire/8571913.stm)

[The Old Fat One]

I guess the general public are unlikely to ever know exactly what happened.


??????? Open court system - tried by 12 good men (or women) and true. Reported in the media as per the law on reporting court cases.

No secrets here. An accident happened and a life was lost. No doubt we all have an opinion on who/why/what was to blame - but nobody commited a crime. Case closed.

[Torque Tonight]

Open justice indeed, but it was reported that the video shown in court showed the pilot opening the throttle and moving towards the victim who was then struck by the propellor. If that is correct I am surprised that he was not found guilty on any charge. If the pedestrian moved towards the aircraft and stepped into the blades that would be a different story, but that is not what was reported, hence the confusion.

[Superpilot]

Mr Griffiths told the court that, while in the air, he believed he had been shot at from the ground and feared a "gang" was on the way to attack him.

He told the court he felt "there was imminent danger" to himself as Mr Morse was speaking on a mobile phone and he feared severe injury "if others turned up".


The judge has obviously beleived that to be the case.

[Lister Noble]

I reckon they were both to blame.

1-Should not block aircraft.
2-Should shut down engine if in doubt of safety of others.

Case probably now closed.
Sad day for everyone,anger seems to rule,here or anywhere around the world.

[Maoraigh1]

Am I right in thinking the guy walked into the pusher prop of the gyro? If so, it would be more his actions than the pilot. As regards the pilots duty to throttle back, he appears justified in his fear of an attack. As a car driver, there are situations where I would be very reluctant to stop when an aggressive person tries to force me to.

[S-Works]

As a car driver, there are situations where I would be very reluctant to stop when an aggressive person tries to force me to.

Indeed. A perfectly normal and friendly guy who worked for my wife is currently serving 4 years for the M1 road rage killing. It is amazing the pickles we get our selves into in a moment of madness.......

[Phil Space]

Following your post Bose I read that story.Tragic and it all happened so quickly.

[snapper1]

''Pilot is cleared over death of huntsman hit by gyrocopter''. The Times, today; full report of the case plus other interesting info including background of the passenger, a ''convicted animal rights extremist'' who, ''had been jailed for 2 years for planning to dig up the remains of the 10th Duke of Beafort and send his head to The princess Royal.''

Strange times we live in.

[BristolScout]

Torque.

It would be practically impossible for the CAA to consider action here, when the pilot in question has been acquitted by a senior court. The best they could do would be on a technicality if his paperwork was in any way deficient at the time of the incident, which would resolve nothing as he's unlikely to do the same thing again.

[Torque Tonight]

The Times report reveals a lot more information. The verdict is understandable given that the pilot was reasonably in fear for his safety. I don't normally have much sympathy for the sabs but it looks very much like they were going to get lynched. It also seems clear that the pilot had been deliberately provoking the hunt for some time before the accident and the passenger seems to have been a particularly nasty piece of work. Unfortunately tensions run so high on both sides of the debate that everyone involved seems to have lost the plot. No winners and a fairly unfortunate day for private flying.

[Torque Tonight]

BristolScout,

I was really thinking of the original trial as opposed to some subsequent action. If the CPS thought murder or manslaughter would not stick, then I wondered if he might have been tried for a charge under the ANO. A quick look suggest that ANO Part 19 Provision 138 might have done: 'A person must not recklessly or negligently cause or permit an aircraft to endanger any person or property' - probably more likely to get a conviction on that charge than on manslaughter. Obviously, being in genuine fear for his own safety would probably be an adequate defence against that charge as well.

BTW, if somebody pointed a gun at my windscreen whilst sitting at traffic lights, I'd probably floor it, knock them over and ask questions later; and if I wanted to impound an aircraft, I'd block it with a vehicle, not my own pink body.

[Katamarino]

Oh, I had assumed that Torque meant the dead guy should be charged under the ANO for endangering an aircraft...!

One less person to try and endanger our flights, I guess...

[The Old Fat One]

The judge has obviously beleived that to be the case.


The judge does not decide the verdict - the jury does. The judge presides over the court and determines points of law.


It is amazing the pickles we get our selves into in a moment of madness.......


Good point; well made.

As to the nature of the passenger, it matters not a jot who or what they were...they were not on trial. Could have been Atilla the Hun...makes no difference.

I disagree that the CAA can take no action; in fact if this guy or anybody else has been breaking the ANO, they are duty bound to get involved. Perhaps not directly in this incident, but in the events leading up to the incident..."deliberately provoking the hunt". If that is true and supporting evidence exists (evidence to CAA standards, not criminal justice standards) then that would suppose a clear breach of the ANO. I can't image that the "opposition" in this case, are not actively progressing this end.

[goldeneaglepilot]

Is breach of the ANO a criminal act? If so, then standards of evidence and burdens of proof have to be to Criminal Justice standards. The previous post implies that the CAA operate to lower standards of proof and evidence than Criminal Justice standards.

Umm....

[effortless]

I say all this as someone who thinks that the ban is pointless.

I take issue with the idea that the pilot had persistently provoked the hunt. He had been reported several times, I understand, for low flying but no evidence stood up. He apparently flew at a legal height in a safe manner and that was enough to enrage. I have been abused and threatened by the hunt in Devon and all I was trying to do was get to hospital. I wouldn't want to be a tenant farmer in a hunt area.

I imagine that he will find it hard to keep his license. CAA have their own rules that must be enforced. I also wonder if he will readily get back into the cockpit.

[Neptunus Rex]

One wonders whether the jury would have found for the defendant had he been a hunt supporter rather than a 'Sab.'

[The Old Fat One]

The previous post implies that the CAA operate to lower standards of proof and evidence than Criminal Justice standards.

Blimey, some of you are hard work when it comes to knowledge of the law.

If the ANO was breached to the extent that a criminal act took place the CAA would inform the CPS (probably via the police) who would decide if a prosecution was in the public interest. It would then become a court case, subject to due process under British Law. If the ANO (or any CAA regulation) is breached such that the CAA decide some form of administrative action was required (but not criminal proceedings) then the CAA can take whatever action it has the power to enforce and it decides is appropriate.

For example you fly your C152 down your local high st at 10 feet scaring the local bobby into a heart attack....criminal proceedings and now in you're in jail.

You fill in log book incorrectly when you apply for your PPL and now you're £179 out of pocket (or you have no license!).

Spot the difference.

I have no idea if any sort of action is appropriate on the chap in question, but if he has been "harrasing the local hunt" with an aircraft I would expect the CAA to take an interest.

PS People who put "Hmmm" and "Ummm" in internet posts and emails are really ****ing irritating.

[Nipper2]

So, Mr Old and Fat, do you think the CAA will take action against the deceased's accomplices for trespassing on an airfield, interfering with aircraft, endangering flight etc.?

I rather think not.

I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that custom and practice in this country is generally not to pursue lesser and technical charges when there has already been a prosecution for a more major offence (whatever the outcome of that trial). It seems to hinge on a British sense of fair play and the idea that “he has suffered enough” rather than the technicalities of the law.

[Gertrude the Wombat]

One wonders whether the jury would have found for the defendant had he been a hunt supporter rather than a 'Sab.'
Somewhere around 99% of the public don't give a toss about hunting one way or the other. You'd be pretty unlucky to have a jury with more than one person on it who actually cared. Particularly as anyone with strong views should declare them and won't be taking part in that trial (following the usual rule for English public life, that anyone who actually knows anything about the subject under discussion is barred from taking part in the decision).

[goldeneaglepilot]

Thanks old and fat one, mine was a simple question, so what you are saying is that there is a two tier system in place and that the CAA are at liberty not to follow due legal process, if they feel its not appropriate. I did not realise that was the case.

Sorry to have irritated you with the comment at the end of my last post...

[Daysleeper]

If the ANO was breached to the extent that a criminal act took place the CAA would inform the CPS (probably via the police) who would decide if a prosecution was in the public interest. It would then become a court case, subject to due process under British Law. If the ANO (or any CAA regulation) is breached such that the CAA decide some form of administrative action was required (but not criminal proceedings) then the CAA can take whatever action it has the power to enforce and it decides is appropriate.


I'm not sure that is the case.... AFAIK the CAA can and do decide upon and run their own prosecutions for breaches of the ANO, there is no involvement from the CPS or Police. Any prosecution then takes place in the normal court system to the normal (criminal) standards of proof.

They can however, offer guidance on how to avoid being prosecuted...bit like the police saying "if you go on a speed awareness course at your own expense we won't prosecute for 35 in a 30."

[goldeneaglepilot]

Daysleeper - your spot on. In my experience, the CAA, police, prosecute and legislate the ANO. They do not refer to the police (except for help in an investigation) or the CPS for prosecution.

Yes the standards and burden of proof at court are to criminal standards.

[BristolScout]

The essential point is that the CAA can only take action, be it informal or legal process, for a breach of the ANO. There has been a lot of pontificating on this issue but I'm not aware of any evidence whatsoever of such a breach. There is nothing in the public domain to suggest that the pilot infringed the Rules of the Air so, provided his paperwork is up to date, there is no case to answer.

[Justiciar]

If the ANO was breached to the extent that a criminal act took place the CAA would inform the CPS (probably via the police) who would decide if a prosecution was in the public interest. It would then become a court case, subject to due process under British Law. If the ANO (or any CAA regulation) is breached such that the CAA decide some form of administrative action was required (but not criminal proceedings) then the CAA can take whatever action it has the power to enforce and it decides is appropriate.

My understanding is that the CAA investigate and if necessary prosecute for breaches of the ANO unless that breach also involves other criminal offences where the police are involved. The police or CPS do not otherwise become involved. Flying lawyer could confirm the position as I believe he appeared on both sides over the years.

Like any prosecuting agency, the CAA would have to decide if there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and if it was in the public interest to prosecute. In many more minor cases of breach they decide that it is not in the public interest and that a word in the pilot's ear is a better approach.

Oh, and there is no such thing as "British Law"!

[coldair]

Guys,

the main thread is running in ROTORHEADS

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/365357-gyrocopter-involved-murder-charge.html