Arsonist on Sharm el-Sheikh flight has sentence doubled

[Alanwsg]

From the BBC ...

Plane toilet arsonist on Sharm el-Sheikh flight has sentence doubled - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-40045599)

[Basil]

Intentional arson or being a culpable idiot who committed a criminal offence? If the former, I'd hang him; if the latter then I'd have thought the initial sentence sufficient.
(Must be getting soft in my old age)

[Artie Fufkin]

I thought exactly the same. I'm not condoning his actions, but getting 9 years for mindless (drunk) stupidity seemed a bit harsh to me too.

[enola-gay]

Even a smoking drunk would put the butt end into the lav pan. He chose to put it alight into the paper bin and I guess he was making some statement to cabin crew who told him not to smoke, hoping to cause a disturbance. He succeeded and he confessed to arson at court.

Drunks on aircraft are a menace to everyone, and it's a crime to be drunk on an aircraft.

[FIRESYSOK]

Not a crime at all. However, against regulations to knowingly load a drunk.

[Brigantee]

Excellent news , Might concentrate peoples minds somewhat.

He has not in effect got nine years he will be out in around half that time

[Loose rivets]

Excellent news , Might concentrate peoples minds somewhat.


Deterrent sentencing is punishing people for crimes that have not yet been committed. A means of controlling the masses and an abhorrence in my opinion.

You have to look at the precise series of events, and exactly what an average person is presented with in the lavatory. Then assume people will become intoxicated if you serve them alcohol - especially if it's known that they can purchase it just prior to the flight.

This is the real world. This man's life was already :mad:'d up, and he is typical of a significant proportion of men of his age in the so-called free world. The intoxication is the issue, everything else after that is human psychology at its saddest.

Gasping for a fag. How many millions suffer that addiction? Intoxication is liberating the mind from responsible thinking. Again, it's the alcohol, not the mindset of a middle-aged family man who when sober would no doubt do anything to protect his children from danger. Did he really set out to start a fire? They'd have us believe he did.

Now look at what such a perpetrator is faced with when he decides the law isn't for him: a tiny room with a plethora of small openings, some containing paper, some just black voids. His cigarette, we know in our sober minds, is a very significant danger, but to him it's just one of thousands he's disposed of, presumably without incident. The probability is that he made a terrible mistake in the place he disposes of it but it sounds for all the world as though he was determined to start a fire and kill everyone on board - after all, we're repeatedly reminded how high we are and clearly that great altitude makes it a much more serious crime. Well, clearly so in the minds of the prosecution.

The Americans remind passengers every flight that it is a Federal Crime to smoke in the lavatory. That wording lends weight to the warning but even that is not really enough. There should be an immediate alarm inside and outside the loo. Passengers should be made aware of that detection system and the seriousness of the crime - should they commit it. Right now, folk worldwide let preflight safety briefings wash over them, and this very important warning is just part of the noise.

The willingness of crews to let people talk all through their briefing is unacceptable.

This man was it seems, down on his luck. He drinks, possibly too much to be legal to board, if the law were to be applied to the letter. He makes an almost juvenile decision to disobey the weakly presented rules and then mindlessly disposes of the cigarette in the wrong place.

The airline, the entire industry, should be held accountable for his ability to bring down an airliner with an addiction that's known about worldwide. Not just known about, but understood in minute detail.

That aircraft has a bewildering mass of devices to protect it and its contents from all manner of dangers. How can this utterly simplistic vulnerability be allowed to continue for decades?

[Connetts]

Intentional arson or being a culpable idiot who committed a criminal offence? If the former, I'd hang him; if the latter then I'd have thought the initial sentence sufficient.
(Must be getting soft in my old age)

Ignorance of the law is no defence to a criminal charge. By smoking when it was forbidden he was committing an offence.

The mental element here, which must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, is the intention to smoke where it is an offence to do so. That he was warned not to smoke makes it easier to prove this.

As a matter of evidence, I'd think that it is reasonable to conclude that by going into the toilet to smoke he probably knew this. If he had given evidence in defence, he would probably have been asked in cross examination why he went to the toilet to smoke and did not light up at his seat.

I find myself hard hearted. In my earlier life, before I retired and returned to Mzantsi, I was a lecturer in the Law Faculty of an English university teaching final year Law students who were taking the Criminology option. A local magistrates' clerk who was responsible for the training programmes for local Benches used to run sentencing exercises, based on real cases, for the Penology segment of the course. The material he used was Court of Appeal judgments. When the students expressed shock at a sentence, he used to say grimly, "He sentenced himself!"

[DaveReidUK]

Ignorance of the law is no defence to a criminal charge. By smoking when it was forbidden he was committing an offence.

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.

[Phororhacos]

What is the rationale for allowing lighters (and I think safety matches) to be carried by passengers on board an aircraft when they are not allowed to be used and can be bought cheaply on arrival?

[ExXB]

Better in the cabin then in the hold (adjacent to loptops and LiIo batteries)

[Ancient Mariner]

LH flight MNL-FRA, business class, about 15 years ago.
Gentleman leaving lavatory smelling of cigarette smoke. My business in lavatory done I opened dust bin to discard towel. Paper smouldering due cigarette butt. Doused it with water, informed CC, pointed out person responsible. Think he had a stern talking to, but not much more.
Times change.

[Phororhacos]

Better in the cabin then in the hold (adjacent to loptops and LiIo batteries)

but why allow them at all and not insist that they be binned at the gate?

[jolihokistix]

In Japan they allow them on domestic flights, limited to one lighter I believe, but not internationally.

[HidekiTojo]

Ah yes it was everyone else's fault that he did what he did. Put the Captain and crew in prison, and all the ground staff, bar workers,
alcohol factory workers, and his fellow passengers.

[reggylater]

Not a crime at all. However, against regulations to knowingly load a drunk.
In the U.K. it is. "A person must not enter any aircraft when drunk, or be drunk in any aircraft." Air Navigation Order 2016 Article 242.

[Loose rivets]

Mr Tojo, I accept your mild sarcasm as your argument, but at no stage did I criticise the flight-deck crew. It's the #1's/Purser's job to run a tight ship - a lot easier in my day, I would have to agree.

Despite the reply, the people selling alcohol to, often imminently boarding passengers certainly have a moral duty to act like a responsible landlord, but that's wishful thinking. In the chaos of modern air travel it's a wonder there's not more drink-related problems. The occasional scrap is bad enough but drink fuelled, deep-routed anger could lead to a major 'I hate the world/life/people' type of rage. To have the aircraft so vulnerable to a psychotic episode is bewildering in this technological age.

It is obvious that certain people must be very aware of this vulnerability.

As for the OP's point. My opinion is, the original sentence was already on the harsh side - if there was no intent. The increase is uncomfortably like American sentencing where more and more prisons are built - because with a system like that, they can afford to.

[Connetts]

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 (http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/criminal_damage/#a13)
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 endangeredIt 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!

[IcePack]

Excellent news. I am told that the incident in question was a little more complex.. unfortunately what I was told is hearsay, hence publishing here would be inappropriate. Sorry

[tubby linton]

I am fully aware of what occurred on this flight and the original sentence was unduly lenient. I am pleased that he will now serve a more appropriate term for his actions, and if I had been the judge I would have probably doubled it to eighteen years.

[Heathrow Harry]

In general deterrent sentencing means someone gets clobbered as a warning - and that is a bit dodgy from a moralistic viewpoint

On the other hand for far too long we've seen people misbehaving on aircraft - they really don't seem to understand that they are in a thin tube with 100-500 others travelling at 850 ft/sec where you can't breathe outside . They behave as if hey are in a bar in San Arenal or some other dump where the biggest risk is tripping over the kerb.

Regretfully this sentence will have far more effect than pages of hand wringing exhortation.......................

[scotneil]

Disagree entirely with Loose rivets: maybe this flight was just lucky in that there was a passenger with firefighting experience who could assist the cabin crew - otherwise less fortunate outcome. Other people (myself included) get served alcohol on flights and manage to control ourselves; if this man's emotional state was unstable, it's his job to stay off the booze- not the cabin crew's responsibility.
He should never be allowed to fly with any airline ever again.

[IcePack]

Scotneil just to back you up. As I said this incident has more to it than reported. Also we are all taught that with a toilet bin fire that is not extinguished immediately you have 14 mins to get the aircraft on the ground before catastrophe, backed up by statistics. Even if you get it on the ground in time the aircraft usually burns out & is a complete right off.
The crew in this incident did a "cracking" job & should be commended. Also at the time the diversion airfields were "in normal circumstances" not recommended due to security concerns both for the aircraft and passenger+crew.

[Loose rivets]

I expected to be disagreed with - as is usual for me, my argument is based on the logic of an automaton. However, there now seems to be some not-so-veiled suggestions that the crime was more serious, and can only conclude there must have been very specific intent.

If that is the case, then the crime was extremely serious and IMHO the appeal was just.

However, there is still the issue of modern aircraft's vulnerability and is a subject that's been ongoing for years. Although it's more in the nature of a technical discussion, I would suggest the subject of those disposal units should be brought to the fore, because it won't be long before there's a harassed young mum thinking she can get away with what she believes to be a very minor bit of rule-breaking.

She should now know the seriousness - and fear the law?

Well, this is a major point about deterrent sentencing. It becomes etched in the minds of lawyers but is soon lost in the memories of everyday folk - those that hear about it at all, that is.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I see mentioned above. That has always puzzled me. I've got a vague recollection of English Common Law having some bedrock logic like, You can't be ordered to do something you can not possibly comply with. Well, being compelled to know the law in its entirety is . . . I probably don't need I go on, but the word absurd comes to mind.

I said earlier:

The occasional scrap is bad enough but drink fuelled, deep-rooted anger could lead to a major 'I hate the world/life/people' type of rage. To have the aircraft so vulnerable to a psychotic episode is bewildering in this technological age.

These beautifully engineered and complex machines are as vulnerable as a child and it occurred to me as I reread my post that of course it's not only hostile passengers that bring aircraft down. We will forever be in the hands of humans, with human vulnerabilities.

With a never ending battle going on to protect aircraft from real enemies, is it reasonable that in addition to drunks and self-proclaimed warriors, that aforementioned stressed out young mother might just bring about the same catastrophe?

[Connetts]

Loose Rivets comments:

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, I see mentioned above. That has always puzzled me. I've got a vague recollection of English Common Law having some bedrock logic like, You can't be ordered to do something you can not possibly comply with. Well, being compelled to know the law in its entirety is . . . I probably don't need I go on, but the word absurd comes to mind. Well, Loose Rivets has committed a grave error of judgment which will be forgiven by few, having deliberately provoked a retired academic suffering acutely from lecturing-withdrawal into responding. In the case of lawyers, the symptoms are especially acute..... I absolutely have to rise to his challenge, for unless I explain something to someone I'll go mad.... errrrh, madder......

Please stop reading here -- if the mods permit this comment -- unless you want to learn some basic jurisprudence. On the other hand, some of what follows is definitely relevant to criminal law and aviation safety.

In my opinion, the absence of a defence of ignorance of the law to a criminal charge is not as problematic as Loose Rivets, who has clearly studied some law, thinks. To see why, one must understand the basic elements of a criminal trial. I appreciate that my explanation is largely based on the English "Common Law" (note the capitals, which are not an affectation) but in fact the explanation is now widely applicable in all democracies. This is because any attempt to have a legitimate and humane, rather than a vicious, repressive and oppressive, system of criminal justice has been shaped by the growing body of human rights law. This is supplemented by international legislation by means of several United Nations' and other international conventions to which many States have subscribed. These lay down what could be described as "recommended practices", and many States have passed laws to make the "should" into "shall" in their own law. I am proud that Mzantsi is one... secs. 232 and 233 of the Constitution set the theme.

The result is modern democratic legal systems tend to follow similar principles and concepts of criminal justice, using language which differs according to local culture, history and language but reaching similar results. So my language below uses terms I'm familiar with but should make sense to PPrunersfrom different cultures. Think of trying to explain to lawyers the differences between Boeings and Airbuses (as an aside, I wish that someone would do me this favour, referring especially to the use of the word "law" and how this relates to Bernoulli's).

So...... lecture begins:

1. There is a presumption of innocence until one is proved to be guilty.

2. Guilt must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, and the prosecution carries this burden.

3. A person accused of a crime can raise defences -- for brevity I run a lot of possibilities into each other and omit some possibilities including drunkeness: eg, "I acted in self defence"; "I was not there and know nothing about the matter"; "I thought that the property belonged to me"; "my action was utterly unintended; I did not know and could not have known all the facts; I had an involuntary twitch or spasm; someone forced my hand".

4. The defences do not have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

5. The prosecution has to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defence has no basis, is groundless, is false, is a lie.

6. If the finder of fact of the court (that is, take your pick: the judge, the judges, the majority of the jury, the unanimous jury, the judge and assessors, the assessors alone...... it all depends on the legal system) concludes that the defence may reasonably be true, then a "not guilty" verdict should follow. Noe that it is NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE THAT IT IS TRUE!!!!!

7. It is generally impossible to prove a negative, but the defence must ensure that there is such strain on the prosecution evidence that the finder of fact will conclude that the burden of proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt is not discharged. This is done by ensuring that evidence helpful to the defence is before the court -- ie, the defence must "adduce" such evidence... eg, it may come from cross-examining prosecution witnesses ("Errhh, yes, the light was bad and so maybe I'm mistaken"; "Yes, I saw the accused person at another place at the time the prosecution says the crime was committed"; "Yes, the dead person was attacking the accused person").

So how does one raise a defence that one did not know the law? What evidence can one offer to the court?

In practice this is not a problem.

Everyone knows that some conduct is criminal because it obviously contravenes some moral/ethical/religious/socially-engendered rule (you don't go around hitting or killing people at random, or taking their property for yourself). On the other hand, some conduct has no obvious moral/ethical/religious/socially-engendered value - what's so special about driving on the left/right side of the road? So a law is made for the safety of all, and road signs and notices go up everywhere. Can anyone claim not to know the law about which side of the road to use?

This is exactly relevant to smoking in the toilets on airplanes. People smoke in their toilets at home and in public places, including airport lounges. It might almost be a virtue to choose such locations because they are confined and reduce the discomfort of non-smokers. So why can't they smoke in the toilets on airplanes? What is the moral/ethical/religious/socially-engendered value which is breached? It can be extremely dangerous, but this may not be apparent. So a law is passed, and made known to all by putting up notices and by cabin crew demonstrations. The system makes sure that everyone knows the law. Can anyone claim not to know the law about smoking on airplanes after having seen and heard the notices?

As for the example of the stressed young mother...... I'm afraid I remain hard-hearted. The fire does not discriminate and, as my former colleague referred to previously used to say, "She has sentenced herself".

But Loose Rivets has a point. What if a law creating an offence was passed while a person could not possibly have learned about it at the time (eg, was in the bush or at sea)? The answer looks inelegant but is adequate: in humane legal systems aspiring to legitimacy the prosecution has a discretion not to prosecute. This discretion is exercised; I draw attention, for example, to the UK's Code for Crown Prosecutors; this a document the like of which can be found widely around the world. I would claim that it is consistent with international human rights law and the various conventions.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/

And as for what one might consider to be obscure but lawful activities or activities requiring specialist knowledge, well...... I remain hard hearted. If one engages in an occupation or activity, it behoves you to know fully what you are doing. How would a pilot feel about another who does not bother to check NOTAMS?

Actually, in my view, airlines should consult criminologists and sociologists about such things. The notices and cautions are half-hearted and inadequate. My preferred text: IT IS A DANGEROUS CRIME TO SMOKE ANYWHERE ON THIS AIRCRAFT. YOU WILL BE DETECTED. THE PUNISHMENT IS SEVERE. YOU MAY ALSO BE BANNED FROM FLYING ON THIS AIRLINE IN FUTURE.

And how about the cabin crew's usual routine demonstration to include the warning and a reminder of the smoke sensors in the toilets, but extended also by: "We will now test and demonstrate the alarm" followed by a deafening screech.

Finally, those who have read this far may be interested in an excellent legal paper in a reputable learned journal on a different view of the "ignorance of the law" defence. Enjoy: we academics thrive on such things......

http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2400&context=mlr

[Heathrow Harry]

I prefer a simpler rule

They are told not to do it - they do it - they should suffer the consequences

Anyone who has flown has heard the warning before and in most countries there are other restrictions on where you can smoke - this isn't the 1970's.

[Loose rivets]

Thank you, Connetts, I shall read the link in the early hours.

I did not know and could not have known all the facts;

A driver is expected to know the Road Traffic Acts, or at least a good working knowledge of them. It's part of his driving skills test and becomes a significant part of most people's daily life. But the hypothetical harassed mum?

Heathrow Harry said: They are told not to do it - they do it - they should suffer the consequences

Obviously Harry is not able to put himself in the mind of a young, flight-stressed and chronically harassed mum. If she did the unthinkable and set light to a bin full of paper, should she miss a large part of her children's growing years? That would be barbaric. Thank goodness she remains hypothetical - for now.

Only when I see a sign in neon flashing IT IS A DANGEROUS CRIME TO SMOKE ANYWHERE ON THIS AIRCRAFT. YOU WILL BE DETECTED. THE PUNISHMENT IS SEVERE. will I be quite sure simple ordinary folk really do understand that to break that particular rule is a little more serious than smoking in the school toilet.

Could anyone be that stupid? Erm, I'm afraid over the years I saw a lot of bewilderingly silly acts, often by seasoned passengers. So the answer has to be yes.

Perhaps a flight attendant that has the chutzpah to stare in a way that brings 300 pairs of eye onto the passenger that's talking through her briefing and say something like, Can I have your undivided attention??!! will we know that the issues of fire, and not grabbing your stuff after a forced landing are serious issues. The latter seems to happen during every evacuation and it's a life-threatening act.

But back to the OP's subject. Have the full facts been released? Two poster's knowledge was made to sound like secret and privileged information earlier in the thread.

*

I don't know quite who's advocate I'm being. I haven't lost the other viewpoint; I still have a very clear image in my mind's eye of the suddenly circular track over the Med. The pattern and silence spelled out what they were going through. It's just that when the law is applied harshly, it is very reassuring to know it's truly deserved.

[DaveReidUK]

Obviously Harry is not able to put himself in the mind of a young, flight-stressed and chronically harassed mum. If she did the unthinkable and set light to a bin full of paper, should she miss a large part of her children's growing years? That would be barbaric.

Which is why it wouldn't happen - the mitigating circumstances that you describe would be taken into account in determining her sentence.

But the fact remains, in this (hypothetical) example, that she would still have been guilty as previously discussed of "arson with intent or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered".

Whichever way you look at it, that's a serious and potentially catastrophic crime.

[Heathrow Harry]

people do strange things under stress - I can believe that an have seen it happen

but you have to look at the potential consequences of her action - just because she has an excuse doesn't mean that she gets off

[Thaihawk]

Not a crime at all. However, against regulations to knowingly load a drunk.

I've been on an UL flight where that happened. The drunk caused more trouble and was removed by police on arrival at LHR.

[megan]

Whenever mention of smoke in the toilet I'm reminded of the Air Canada DC-9 that had a fire in the toilet, for reasons not determined, cigarette, or initiated by an electrical issue. Crew were first alerted by popping circuit breakers, before a FA was advised by a passenger they could smell an odour of burning. 17 minutes from the discovery of fire to landing. 23 of the 41 passengers did not survive.

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/AAR8602.aspx

The cabin conditions endured were unbelievable. Don't be too sanguine about prats having a smoke.