GA The "Terrorism Act" and Big Brother!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I0540 wrote:
OK, you get what you wished for. The Prof bit is Professor of Electronic Commerce Law, so here I do think I know what I'm talking about.
1. There is no such thing as "legal proof" (in the sense of certainty about complying with the law) for anything to do with sending faxes or emails. There is a small number of cases about whether the use of fax or email in the particular circumstances constituted a signed writing, but these are only guidance as to what the courts are likely to accept as evidence. Thus, like most aspects of the law, certainty is not on offer.
2. This means that you need to look at the relevant legal provision to analyse what needs to be done to comply with it. The quotations from other posters from the Terrorism Act [caveat: this is Sunday evening and I'm not prepared to waste it reading that Act, so I'm assuming they have quoted correctly] require the commander of the aircraft to give notice to the specified body. The question is therefore whether you have notified that body.
3. Notification requires you to convey the specified information to that body. Whether anyone reads it is irrelevant.
4. Until the information is received, nothing has been notified. This is equally true for hard copy letters, faxes (however sent), emails, carrier pigeons etc. If received, you have succeeded in notifying.
5. If Special Branch says you have failed to notify, the legal question is then whether you can produce evidence that you did notify. It is important to distinguish this from proof of sending - if you can prove you sent the notice a court might infer from that that your notice arrived - or it might not.
6. This means that the only methods of proof which would work are (a) a signature for e.g. a recorded delivery letter, (b) a fax machine log, which is evidence (but not conclusive proof) that the fax receiving apparatus at the number called did interact with your sending apparatus, or (c) an email received or read receipt (but most users, including me, set their email systems to refuse to send such receipts).
7. In practice, if you can prove you sent the notice then in my view you are unlikely to be prosecuted, even if your notice did not arrive, unless you have done something else to annoy law enforcement/security (calling the police rude names is never a good strategy).
8. If I were trying to prove I sent an email I would simply cc it to myself, or even better to a third party as well. I could easily produce evidence that I or my friend received the cc-ed copy (if necessary by the logs of my mail server, though this is probably over the top) and thus that the notice had been sent to the main addressee.
9. If I can prove I sent the notice, then the burden of proof would almost certainly be on the recipient to provide evidence it wasn't received (except in the case of a recorded delivery letter, where the signature on receipt will prove it either way so you should ask the Royal Mail to confirm signature). My guess would be that most law enforcement agencies do not operate a system for receipt of faxes which would allow them to produce such evidence. For emails, server logs should be able to produce such proof if retained in time.
Overall, I'd say that a fax offers a slightly higher level of evidence of receipt, but that an email cc-ed to yourself or a friend is very nearly as good.
I'd be happy to rely on an email to save me from prosecution, though as I only fly gliders this is never likely to be a pressing issue for me.
These principles also apply to business communications, except that if I've drafted the agreement under which you are giving notice the agreement will produce legal certainty (or the next best thing) as between the parties to the agreement.
Hope this helps.
I hope a lawyer comes in here soon
1. There is no such thing as "legal proof" (in the sense of certainty about complying with the law) for anything to do with sending faxes or emails. There is a small number of cases about whether the use of fax or email in the particular circumstances constituted a signed writing, but these are only guidance as to what the courts are likely to accept as evidence. Thus, like most aspects of the law, certainty is not on offer.
2. This means that you need to look at the relevant legal provision to analyse what needs to be done to comply with it. The quotations from other posters from the Terrorism Act [caveat: this is Sunday evening and I'm not prepared to waste it reading that Act, so I'm assuming they have quoted correctly] require the commander of the aircraft to give notice to the specified body. The question is therefore whether you have notified that body.
3. Notification requires you to convey the specified information to that body. Whether anyone reads it is irrelevant.
4. Until the information is received, nothing has been notified. This is equally true for hard copy letters, faxes (however sent), emails, carrier pigeons etc. If received, you have succeeded in notifying.
5. If Special Branch says you have failed to notify, the legal question is then whether you can produce evidence that you did notify. It is important to distinguish this from proof of sending - if you can prove you sent the notice a court might infer from that that your notice arrived - or it might not.
6. This means that the only methods of proof which would work are (a) a signature for e.g. a recorded delivery letter, (b) a fax machine log, which is evidence (but not conclusive proof) that the fax receiving apparatus at the number called did interact with your sending apparatus, or (c) an email received or read receipt (but most users, including me, set their email systems to refuse to send such receipts).
7. In practice, if you can prove you sent the notice then in my view you are unlikely to be prosecuted, even if your notice did not arrive, unless you have done something else to annoy law enforcement/security (calling the police rude names is never a good strategy).
8. If I were trying to prove I sent an email I would simply cc it to myself, or even better to a third party as well. I could easily produce evidence that I or my friend received the cc-ed copy (if necessary by the logs of my mail server, though this is probably over the top) and thus that the notice had been sent to the main addressee.
9. If I can prove I sent the notice, then the burden of proof would almost certainly be on the recipient to provide evidence it wasn't received (except in the case of a recorded delivery letter, where the signature on receipt will prove it either way so you should ask the Royal Mail to confirm signature). My guess would be that most law enforcement agencies do not operate a system for receipt of faxes which would allow them to produce such evidence. For emails, server logs should be able to produce such proof if retained in time.
Overall, I'd say that a fax offers a slightly higher level of evidence of receipt, but that an email cc-ed to yourself or a friend is very nearly as good.
I'd be happy to rely on an email to save me from prosecution, though as I only fly gliders this is never likely to be a pressing issue for me.
These principles also apply to business communications, except that if I've drafted the agreement under which you are giving notice the agreement will produce legal certainty (or the next best thing) as between the parties to the agreement.
Hope this helps.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget that a fax confirmation is not your only proof of sending the fax. Your telephone company can confirm that a call was made from your line to the required fax number and the date and time of the call (which should agree with your confirmation page).
But most importantly they can confirm the duration of that call. Fax machines only talk to one another for a certain lenght of time before timing out for failed faxes. So if the call was for a minute or so, it's pretty good evidence that something was received from the call which the telephone records show took place, which is also backed up by your confirmation page.
Most fax machines produce a summary log of received/transmitted faxes every 20-50 faxes or so. If the police retained this is would prove that your fax was received. If they didn't retain it, I suggest that they would struggle to defend themselves against your confirmation page, and your independent telephone records. I can imagine the conversation now......"My client has a confirmation page from his fax, which agrees with independent BT phone records. Are you seriously trying to tell the court that you never received this fax?" ....."ermm...well.. we have no record of receiving it."........."Wel of course you have no record of receiving it!!! You don't bother retaining your fax records!!!!"
dp
But most importantly they can confirm the duration of that call. Fax machines only talk to one another for a certain lenght of time before timing out for failed faxes. So if the call was for a minute or so, it's pretty good evidence that something was received from the call which the telephone records show took place, which is also backed up by your confirmation page.
Most fax machines produce a summary log of received/transmitted faxes every 20-50 faxes or so. If the police retained this is would prove that your fax was received. If they didn't retain it, I suggest that they would struggle to defend themselves against your confirmation page, and your independent telephone records. I can imagine the conversation now......"My client has a confirmation page from his fax, which agrees with independent BT phone records. Are you seriously trying to tell the court that you never received this fax?" ....."ermm...well.. we have no record of receiving it."........."Wel of course you have no record of receiving it!!! You don't bother retaining your fax records!!!!"
dp
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that Recorded Delivery is regarded as so good. It is actually a really crap service. People use it because it works most of the time, and is cheap. The police use it for summonses because a proof of posting is legally sufficient for those.
In my business, we send most UK stuff RD, and each year many packages vanish without trace. Royal Mail carries RD stuff alongside (literally mixed with) normal mail so if it is lost, it is lost, no signature is obtained, and it cannot be traced. The system relies on the postman to spot the RD sticker at the point of delivery, and request a signature. A lot of postmen fail to spot the sticker and just deliver the package, never collecting the sig.
Special Delivery is better in that it is tracked, which is why I use it for final notices to cowboy builders, etc. But only the other day we had a case of 'no signature obtained', package lost, but we did get the £500 compensation.
I am also suprised you think email CCd to a mate is any good at all. If delivery is required for compliance with the law, what happens if the recipient's ISP runs (or uses) an IP blacklist and dumps the email? This is a huge problem nowadays. The other day I emailed the GAR to the police on the IOM (yes they have email addresses, and like to have a copy of the GAR too, apparently....) and it bounced back, allegedly due to an IP blacklist. Would this be considered 'delivered' I wonder?
In my business, we send most UK stuff RD, and each year many packages vanish without trace. Royal Mail carries RD stuff alongside (literally mixed with) normal mail so if it is lost, it is lost, no signature is obtained, and it cannot be traced. The system relies on the postman to spot the RD sticker at the point of delivery, and request a signature. A lot of postmen fail to spot the sticker and just deliver the package, never collecting the sig.
Special Delivery is better in that it is tracked, which is why I use it for final notices to cowboy builders, etc. But only the other day we had a case of 'no signature obtained', package lost, but we did get the £500 compensation.
I am also suprised you think email CCd to a mate is any good at all. If delivery is required for compliance with the law, what happens if the recipient's ISP runs (or uses) an IP blacklist and dumps the email? This is a huge problem nowadays. The other day I emailed the GAR to the police on the IOM (yes they have email addresses, and like to have a copy of the GAR too, apparently....) and it bounced back, allegedly due to an IP blacklist. Would this be considered 'delivered' I wonder?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recorded delivery is only any good if you can get the record of the signature on receipt. I don't use it, but like you have my doubts about its efficacy in actually obtaining that signature and being able to produce it.
Email cc-ed to a mate would be excellent proof of sending, as I said in my point 8. My view is that if you can prove sending, it's highly unlikely you'd be prosecuted.
Email bounced back because of an IP blacklist is an interesting one. I'd suggest that if you receive the bounce back immediately you know your notice has not been received by any person, and thus you know you have failed to notify. If the bounce arrived hours later, as can happen, or you never receive bounce notification, I can construct a very convincing argument that you did indeed notify. Whether the courts would accept that argument is something else though.
If you're really concerned about this, fun could be had by cc-ing the email to the CAA, or the Home Secretary, or an equivalent. Then you'd have the amusement of requiring the production of their records in your defence (note to the lay public, this may only be a lawyer's idea of fun, though as the Home Secretary is responsible for Special Branch it does seem appropriate to inform her about the important fact that you're off to Jersey. The Cabinet Office website offers [email protected], though I fear that Jacqui Smith may not see this personally).
Email cc-ed to a mate would be excellent proof of sending, as I said in my point 8. My view is that if you can prove sending, it's highly unlikely you'd be prosecuted.
Email bounced back because of an IP blacklist is an interesting one. I'd suggest that if you receive the bounce back immediately you know your notice has not been received by any person, and thus you know you have failed to notify. If the bounce arrived hours later, as can happen, or you never receive bounce notification, I can construct a very convincing argument that you did indeed notify. Whether the courts would accept that argument is something else though.
If you're really concerned about this, fun could be had by cc-ing the email to the CAA, or the Home Secretary, or an equivalent. Then you'd have the amusement of requiring the production of their records in your defence (note to the lay public, this may only be a lawyer's idea of fun, though as the Home Secretary is responsible for Special Branch it does seem appropriate to inform her about the important fact that you're off to Jersey. The Cabinet Office website offers [email protected], though I fear that Jacqui Smith may not see this personally).
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some quite amusing angles there 
My guess is that at most 10% of emails rejected by spam filters result in anything at all going back to the sender. The rest is just quietly dumped.
CC'ing an email to the Home Secy would be a funny thing to do but I am sure it would be worthless because they will be running the same spam filters as anybody else might be.
IMHO, fax is still the best way.
A website form, on a server owned by Plod, would be perfect and I don't know why they don't do that - it is a week's work for somebody with more than half a brain.
My guess is that at most 10% of emails rejected by spam filters result in anything at all going back to the sender. The rest is just quietly dumped.
CC'ing an email to the Home Secy would be a funny thing to do but I am sure it would be worthless because they will be running the same spam filters as anybody else might be.
IMHO, fax is still the best way.
A website form, on a server owned by Plod, would be perfect and I don't know why they don't do that - it is a week's work for somebody with more than half a brain.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What to expect when they turn up?
Going on from the notification. I have never been the recipient of a visit.
Anybody willing to say who turned up and what they asked for (paperwork), how long was the visit what did they look at (aircraft, paperwork, people)?
What were they like towards you as pilot? Was the visit inbound or outward - did they delay you departure? Were you departing larger airfield with security etc or just grass strip?
Just curious what to expect one day!
Tim
Anybody willing to say who turned up and what they asked for (paperwork), how long was the visit what did they look at (aircraft, paperwork, people)?
What were they like towards you as pilot? Was the visit inbound or outward - did they delay you departure? Were you departing larger airfield with security etc or just grass strip?
Just curious what to expect one day!
Tim
Last edited by rtl_flyer; 12th Aug 2008 at 09:44. Reason: Error...
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never been stopped outbound. Been met twice inbound. Did not want to see any paperwork, mark one eyeballed the aircraft and passengers as they walked up said Hi! in a very pleasant manner and had a cup of tea and talked about flying and aircraft in general. Stayed long enough for the tea and left.
It seems reading the comments on here that compared to other forces Northants Police not only understand the legislation but deal with it with a light hand.
It seems reading the comments on here that compared to other forces Northants Police not only understand the legislation but deal with it with a light hand.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Been met twice inbound to UK.
Once very friendly officer in Islay, would simply asked us to fill out landing cards, which included all the info already supplied on the GAR form. She was very friendly, offered local advice on where to stay where to eat and drink etc. Lasted just long enough for us to fill out the landing cards...no more than 5 minutes.
Second time was rather less friendly, in Caernarfon. In fairness this was mainly my own fault as I had faxed the GAR form to South Wales police force instead of North Wales police force. The form was faxed 2 weeks before the flight so I'm disappointed that South Wales didn't either forward it to North Wales or alternatively inform me of my error.
Anyway we had to wait about 45 minutes for SB to turn up (was told by airport mgt that we were not to leave until they arrived). Conversation was less than friendly but never agressive. It went something along the lines of
SB: you must send a GAR 24 hours in advance and then you must ring us to get the permission number.
Me: But I did send the GAR!
This conversation took roughly an hour. I made a second mistake of not bringing the fax confirmation with me. It would have at least have shown that I had sent the fax and would have shown up my error in sending it to the wrong place. Without it I had little defence. Nor was I in a position to corrrect them that only 12 hours notice was required and that I didn't require a permission number. On return to home, I got copies of my fax confirmation page, and telephone records from my phone company. I wrote a letter to SB explaining the error (and apologising) but never received a response.
So if you do everything correctly, it seems to be little time involved. If you mess up it's a lot longer. I now always bring a copy of my GAR form, the confirmation page, and a copy of schedule 7 of the TA2000.
dp
ps. North Wales PF told me that they try met every single inbound flight that requires a GAR.
Once very friendly officer in Islay, would simply asked us to fill out landing cards, which included all the info already supplied on the GAR form. She was very friendly, offered local advice on where to stay where to eat and drink etc. Lasted just long enough for us to fill out the landing cards...no more than 5 minutes.
Second time was rather less friendly, in Caernarfon. In fairness this was mainly my own fault as I had faxed the GAR form to South Wales police force instead of North Wales police force. The form was faxed 2 weeks before the flight so I'm disappointed that South Wales didn't either forward it to North Wales or alternatively inform me of my error.
Anyway we had to wait about 45 minutes for SB to turn up (was told by airport mgt that we were not to leave until they arrived). Conversation was less than friendly but never agressive. It went something along the lines of
SB: you must send a GAR 24 hours in advance and then you must ring us to get the permission number.
Me: But I did send the GAR!
This conversation took roughly an hour. I made a second mistake of not bringing the fax confirmation with me. It would have at least have shown that I had sent the fax and would have shown up my error in sending it to the wrong place. Without it I had little defence. Nor was I in a position to corrrect them that only 12 hours notice was required and that I didn't require a permission number. On return to home, I got copies of my fax confirmation page, and telephone records from my phone company. I wrote a letter to SB explaining the error (and apologising) but never received a response.
So if you do everything correctly, it seems to be little time involved. If you mess up it's a lot longer. I now always bring a copy of my GAR form, the confirmation page, and a copy of schedule 7 of the TA2000.
dp
ps. North Wales PF told me that they try met every single inbound flight that requires a GAR.
We were stopped outbound on one occasion (from a designated airport without a continuous police presence). They were interested in any large quantities of cash we were carrying, and made a cursory inspection of our bags. Turned out they thought we were going to Munster. When they worked out that it wasn't the same as our destination, Münster, they lost interest.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: kent
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At one time I made regular trips to the IOM from Kent. The first time a charming Mr Plod turned up and asked a few questions and then said whilst he still needed notifying he wouldn't bother turning up again unless he wanted to get out of the office!
