How NOT to become a Police pilot!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slj
Should never have been brought.
It's very easy to say that now, when we all know what happened.
This guy conned the Police and ended up flying a Police helicopter. I somehow don't believe however overstretched the CPS are they'd have run this one like just an ordinary case, and they would have had their own barrister advising them and prosecuting the case in the crown court.
The guy got off ALL the charges, not just the main one.
Should never have been brought.
It's very easy to say that now, when we all know what happened.
This guy conned the Police and ended up flying a Police helicopter. I somehow don't believe however overstretched the CPS are they'd have run this one like just an ordinary case, and they would have had their own barrister advising them and prosecuting the case in the crown court.
The guy got off ALL the charges, not just the main one.
Last edited by Hoverman; 3rd May 2002 at 14:25.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Brighton, MI, USA
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, FL, for an excellent summary of how this played out before the Recorder.
I think those participants who suggest that the ASU and its officers were stupid, or naive, or negligent, need to bear in mind that they dealt for upwards of a year with a person who is obviously skilled at presenting a convincing account of himself.
I'm minded of Frank Abagnale, a high-school graduate who pulled an analogous stunt in the 60's, representing himself as a PanAm pilot and riding jumpseats and sometimes left-and-right seats around the world on that airline's aircraft. He then graduated into check fraud and the like, which is how I know him.
Frank is "straight" now - Persil-scheined by the FBI, no less. I like Frank very well, and am always glad to attend one of his training seminars. But that man could sell iceboxes to Eskimoes, and I always check my wallet when I'm done talking with him.
Never underestimate the power of a persuasive personality. Perhaps the ASU needs one or two recent ex-beat-copppers knocking around the place - I doubt that this fellow would have got very far around someone like that.
llater,
llamas
I think those participants who suggest that the ASU and its officers were stupid, or naive, or negligent, need to bear in mind that they dealt for upwards of a year with a person who is obviously skilled at presenting a convincing account of himself.
I'm minded of Frank Abagnale, a high-school graduate who pulled an analogous stunt in the 60's, representing himself as a PanAm pilot and riding jumpseats and sometimes left-and-right seats around the world on that airline's aircraft. He then graduated into check fraud and the like, which is how I know him.
Frank is "straight" now - Persil-scheined by the FBI, no less. I like Frank very well, and am always glad to attend one of his training seminars. But that man could sell iceboxes to Eskimoes, and I always check my wallet when I'm done talking with him.
Never underestimate the power of a persuasive personality. Perhaps the ASU needs one or two recent ex-beat-copppers knocking around the place - I doubt that this fellow would have got very far around someone like that.
llater,
llamas
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman
I said the case put before the court should never had been brought.
This is different from saying that there should not have been a prosecution on some grounds.
One of the best pieces of advice in deciding to bring a case to court is to carry out an exercise that makes you look at how you would defend that case if you represented the otherside. You quickly see the snags in your case if any exist.
Read what FL says in his first posting. Why did he decide to leave his destruction exercise to the actual hearing? What were the risks in trying to get the charges withdrawn before the hearing?
I said the case put before the court should never had been brought.
This is different from saying that there should not have been a prosecution on some grounds.
One of the best pieces of advice in deciding to bring a case to court is to carry out an exercise that makes you look at how you would defend that case if you represented the otherside. You quickly see the snags in your case if any exist.
Read what FL says in his first posting. Why did he decide to leave his destruction exercise to the actual hearing? What were the risks in trying to get the charges withdrawn before the hearing?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Ree
Lawyers in any system be it adversarial or inquisitorial, represent their clients and I am not sure whether you are making a genuine point or embarking upon a bit of lawyer bashing, a sport not entirely unknown on Pprune.
The system we have provides for anyone accused of an offence to be properly defended and for the prosecution to prove their guilt if they are to be convicted.
The adversarial system works upon the principle that both sides have the opportunity to be represented by advocates (as we must call them these days) of equal calibre. It doesn't always follow but it does to a large extent and it is worth remembering that barristers such as myself and FL both prosecute and defend. It is perhaps fortunate for the flying community that the CAA seem to have a policy of not instructing pilots to prosecute their cases (at least so I have heard and none of the CAA prosecutors I have been against have ever been pilots) and thus so far FL has not been lured by the Dark Side.
Joking apart, the Bar code of conduct provides, inter alia:
When defending a client on a criminal charge, a barrister must endeavour to protect his client from conviction except by a competent tribunal and upon legally admissible evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence for which his client is charged.
A barrister is under a duty to defend any person on whose behalf he is instructed on a criminal charge irrespective of any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the guilt or innocence of that person.
Defending counsel is not under any duty to correct any mis-statement of fact made by the prosecution.......
The code also reminds barristers that
"the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;
that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution"
I pose the question, whether it be in a criminal or civil case, would you like to be represented by a lawyer who is going to tell the opposition about the gaps in your case and what they should do to make their case stronger? Having subsequently lost the case what is going to be your reaction when you come to pay his bill?
Lawyers in any system be it adversarial or inquisitorial, represent their clients and I am not sure whether you are making a genuine point or embarking upon a bit of lawyer bashing, a sport not entirely unknown on Pprune.
The system we have provides for anyone accused of an offence to be properly defended and for the prosecution to prove their guilt if they are to be convicted.
The adversarial system works upon the principle that both sides have the opportunity to be represented by advocates (as we must call them these days) of equal calibre. It doesn't always follow but it does to a large extent and it is worth remembering that barristers such as myself and FL both prosecute and defend. It is perhaps fortunate for the flying community that the CAA seem to have a policy of not instructing pilots to prosecute their cases (at least so I have heard and none of the CAA prosecutors I have been against have ever been pilots) and thus so far FL has not been lured by the Dark Side.
Joking apart, the Bar code of conduct provides, inter alia:
When defending a client on a criminal charge, a barrister must endeavour to protect his client from conviction except by a competent tribunal and upon legally admissible evidence sufficient to support a conviction for the offence for which his client is charged.
A barrister is under a duty to defend any person on whose behalf he is instructed on a criminal charge irrespective of any belief or opinion which he may have formed as to the guilt or innocence of that person.
Defending counsel is not under any duty to correct any mis-statement of fact made by the prosecution.......
The code also reminds barristers that
"the issue in a criminal trial is always whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, never whether he is innocent;
that the burden of proof rests on the prosecution"
I pose the question, whether it be in a criminal or civil case, would you like to be represented by a lawyer who is going to tell the opposition about the gaps in your case and what they should do to make their case stronger? Having subsequently lost the case what is going to be your reaction when you come to pay his bill?
Senis Semper Fidelis
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lancashire U K
Posts: 1,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite this guy being what could be described as a bit of a conman, he must have been very able in the flying department, the Chief pilot otherwise would have seen though him,
Wouldn't he?
Wouldn't he?
It's a basic principle of law that both sides kick off equal and do their best. It might seem nice to say - Well, he's a swine, must be guilty, but when you make an exception from the law once, you damage the whole system....soon you come to - Oh well, he's black, looked at me funny - guilty! and Oh, he's rich, must be OK-. Therefore, any breach of the law by the police or the prosecution has to be treated strictly, as they have the power to tits around with the evidence, batter the suspect etc. if they are not held to it. Democracy and the Rule of Law go together - unfortunately that means that sometimes, we have to put up with a verdict we don't like.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: London
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wasn't intending to do some law bashing with my comments, only to remark on the differences between the two codes of aviation and law. Often we see the old debate 'could a newly qualified PPL land a 747 etc', well I suppose I was thinking what if a pilot was a lawyer for a day; would they be able to keep quiet about some facts that they knew, if released, would send their guilty (as admitted) client to jail.
Having said that, knowing some of the guys I fly with that would have to be a resounding yes!
Oh well. Really just as well I'm not a lawyer.
Having said that, knowing some of the guys I fly with that would have to be a resounding yes!
Oh well. Really just as well I'm not a lawyer.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: South Africa
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walter Mitty unlicensed
In South Africa there was a similar set of events , where this "Walter Mitty" was sooo smooth that he took in several employers , actually flying reasonably well ! But , he had held only a PPL -then expired - when he flew commercially for a few months.
So beware - it's not the first - nor the last time these "Walter Mitty's" try to be employed - without a license !
So beware - it's not the first - nor the last time these "Walter Mitty's" try to be employed - without a license !
Has he actually done anything that the CAA could do him for? As far as I can make out he has a PPL(H), so he's qualified to fly helicopters. He managed to get himself some flights in a twin, albeit dishonestly, but presumably with an instructor. He won't have flown it "solo" or with fare paying passengers, ie public transport.
So has he done anything that isn't covered by his PPL?
So has he done anything that isn't covered by his PPL?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Forgive me if I've got it wrong, but I've heard that he flew single pilot operational sorties with police observers and that he had never had a base check or whatever with an instructor on the EC135.
Please tell me that I have hearing trouble!
Please tell me that I have hearing trouble!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Seems to me this should have been discussed more thoroughly with the CAA. The prosecution (well deserved IMHO) should perhaps have been brought by them, not the CPS.
It appears the charges were incorrect, hence the not guilty verdict. Deception apart, it seems **** was knowingly operating outside of the privileges of his licence; all police flights of this nature are deemed to be public transport. Competent or not, he was not legally allowed to make PT flights as commander.
And presumably the Chief Pilot wants his ar$e kicking...(but he's certainly not the only one who could have been conned). Hopefully this won't EVER happen again. If there had been an accident......
It appears the charges were incorrect, hence the not guilty verdict. Deception apart, it seems **** was knowingly operating outside of the privileges of his licence; all police flights of this nature are deemed to be public transport. Competent or not, he was not legally allowed to make PT flights as commander.
And presumably the Chief Pilot wants his ar$e kicking...(but he's certainly not the only one who could have been conned). Hopefully this won't EVER happen again. If there had been an accident......
Last edited by ShyTorque; 6th May 2002 at 22:34.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: ex EGNM, now NZRO
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over here in NZ we have just had a guy get the CEO of a new Maori TV channel to be launched next year - except they found his MBA came straight off the net, his affiliation (supposedly a board member)with the British Columbia security board (the Canadian stock exchange) non-existant, his claimed sporting feats - all made up, etc. He pulled a £200K public job and then claims the CIA (or Canadian equivalent) changed his identity. The only honest facts about him was that he had twice been a bankrupt.
Now, if I get my Flight Sim 2000 out and print out the log book and the Airline Transport Licence think I can get a job!
Now, if I get my Flight Sim 2000 out and print out the log book and the Airline Transport Licence think I can get a job!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glad to see that other court systems are as screwed up as the U.S. . I work in a small unit as a pilot and before you can even get an interview with the unit you must present your medical, pilots license and log book. If anything looks suspicious they would pull your last two medical applications and check you flying hours. If you don't present these documents you don't even get the interview.
We have a set of procedures for pilots and observer selection and follow them to insure that all applicants meet the requirements.
Feel bad for the Unit that let this happen. But I bet it will nevr happen again and alot of Police Agencies will be rechecking the applicants.
Skycop9
We have a set of procedures for pilots and observer selection and follow them to insure that all applicants meet the requirements.
Feel bad for the Unit that let this happen. But I bet it will nevr happen again and alot of Police Agencies will be rechecking the applicants.
Skycop9
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Ree,
You say 'guilty (as admitted) client....', if a client admits his guilt a barrister cannot defend him upon a not guilty plea unless
(i) his admission does not in fact amount to the commission of the relevant offence in law ie "well I'm guilty because I did X but I did not intend Y" where Y is a necessary ingredient of the offence. or,
where
(ii) there is insufficient evidence upon which the client could be convicted of the offence charged.
In the latter case we can only put the prosecution to proof and not assert a positive case to try and prove innocence.
Actually we are a pretty honourable profession who largely stick to the rules - to be honest most of us don't believe that its worth being struck off by breaking the rules. I appreciate most people have an inate mistrust of lawyers and the question we are always asked is "how can you defend people you know are guilty?" The question nobody ever asks is "how can you prosecute people you know are innocent?".
If you really want to see how the legal system works why not come along and see, if you fancy swopping a jump seat ride for a day in court drop me a line.
You say 'guilty (as admitted) client....', if a client admits his guilt a barrister cannot defend him upon a not guilty plea unless
(i) his admission does not in fact amount to the commission of the relevant offence in law ie "well I'm guilty because I did X but I did not intend Y" where Y is a necessary ingredient of the offence. or,
where
(ii) there is insufficient evidence upon which the client could be convicted of the offence charged.
In the latter case we can only put the prosecution to proof and not assert a positive case to try and prove innocence.
Actually we are a pretty honourable profession who largely stick to the rules - to be honest most of us don't believe that its worth being struck off by breaking the rules. I appreciate most people have an inate mistrust of lawyers and the question we are always asked is "how can you defend people you know are guilty?" The question nobody ever asks is "how can you prosecute people you know are innocent?".
If you really want to see how the legal system works why not come along and see, if you fancy swopping a jump seat ride for a day in court drop me a line.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Surely he didn't do an operational sortie solo, I had to go to Gatwick to get my licence endorsed with 135 before I even got near the aircraft single pilot.....
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: fort myers fl usa
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hard to beleve
thats is one hell of a story,
how can a guy take over a helicopter and fly it,
without all the checks been carried out,
ie, log book, type rating, licence,
hope they do better next time, lol
how can a guy take over a helicopter and fly it,
without all the checks been carried out,
ie, log book, type rating, licence,
hope they do better next time, lol
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: North of South
Posts: 831
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day , you are dealing with the police (I am one) This chap came in talking the talk and apparently convincingly walking the walk and conned whoever it is that does recruitment . The police service is absolutely stackfull of idiots with rank on their shoulders who do just that that . They have little experience little ability and are invariably crap at their jobs , thus making the police service a laughing stock . Now if the police cannot root out pillochs in their own ranks how are they ever going to suss out that a chap claiming to hold licences to do something they have no idea about , actually doesnt . Our vetting depts for gods sake are a waste of time , Ive lost track of how many , football hooligans , disqualified drivers , ex prison inmates etc etc we have allowed into our ranks due to this ridiculous process . This comes as no surprise to me from the police side. I am quite surprised though that he managed to fox the pilots . You guys (Helis) all seem to know one another or have at least heard of each other. With the quals that this guy allegedly had I would have thought someone would have known him , but these people are sent to try us .
On a policey side of things FL does infer that the CID officers investigating might be getting an interview without coffee from the chief. In case like this the CID ,if indeed they dealt with it would have put all the evidence to the CPS who would have made the decision on which charge was appropriate not the Police . They would have then formulated their case on the evidence they had , which would probably have been very comprehensive . This is not the fault of the police but as per usual the CPS , prosecutions dont fail generally because of the police , as we dont prosecute the CPS do .
My last drink drive case that went to court was prosecuted by a very well paid gentleman who had months to prepare .He was faced with a very worthy adversary , a 24 year old solicitior with a years experience who got the file that morning , The laws an ass.
But at least we know that there are people like FL who can us pilot types if we should need it .
N.B any probationary police officer could have told you that defence to obtaining pecuniary advantage it aint rocket science
On a policey side of things FL does infer that the CID officers investigating might be getting an interview without coffee from the chief. In case like this the CID ,if indeed they dealt with it would have put all the evidence to the CPS who would have made the decision on which charge was appropriate not the Police . They would have then formulated their case on the evidence they had , which would probably have been very comprehensive . This is not the fault of the police but as per usual the CPS , prosecutions dont fail generally because of the police , as we dont prosecute the CPS do .
My last drink drive case that went to court was prosecuted by a very well paid gentleman who had months to prepare .He was faced with a very worthy adversary , a 24 year old solicitior with a years experience who got the file that morning , The laws an ass.
But at least we know that there are people like FL who can us pilot types if we should need it .
N.B any probationary police officer could have told you that defence to obtaining pecuniary advantage it aint rocket science