Police pilot prosecuted!
 

I've been told a Police helicopter pilot is being prosecuted at the Leicester Crown Court. :eek:

Anyone know any more?

Yes.
But, as Tom said to Kelly, "If I tell you, I'll have to kill you!" :D


All will become clear over the next two or three days. ;)

Is this the one with a licence to kill but not much else?:rolleyes:

Shyte, Yes.

Are you involved FL?

I was Chief Pilot of the very same ASU, but before this event.

I'm told the guy was very convincing, and it would seem he's even managed to charm the judge.

Let's await more from those in the know. Frankly I'm astounded, but in this modern 'blame someone else' culture, it will probably be the Unit who get shafted for not checking his credentials at an earlier stage, and allowing the pillock to get away with it. What happened to personal responsibility.

Interestingly, and pertinent to the same ASU, the police observer who has been unable to work since the October 1998 fatal accident has still to receive any compensation for injuries which were definitely not caused by his own fault. This is in no way a cririsism of the unit, who have done their best in the face of an insurance company pulling out all the stops to shirk their responsibilities. More on Rotorheads.

Sounds like it was all over before it began. What a story! Did it appear anywhere in the press?
Anyone know how on earth the guy got off? What was the legal argument? It must have been very persuasive.

OK I do know a little more about this than I'm letting on, but need to tread carefully if I'm ever to be able to return to the unit for a cup of tea (or speed locally on my motorbike!).:D

Suffice to say that he got off on a technicality, and IMHO was very lucky to have the judge he had on the day. The charge was 'attempting to obtain pecuniary advantage by deception'. To have a case against him, it would need to be proven that he thought he would get the job and be paid.

His argument was that he was bound to be found out before payday, therefore no case. The judge agreed.

In order to give him enough rope to hang himself with, the ASU (who were by now suspicious, due to the complexity of elaborate excuses behind the lack of documents) would have had to let him start work, with all the obvious risks involved, safety, insurance etc.

They could not allow that, so no trial. The charge lies on the file, for a future case if necessary.

This means he has got away with the charge brought.

But, CAA, are you there? He has almost certainly committed offences which you could bring against him. You are keen enough to put hapless PPLs, who make mistakes, in court, so what about this Walter Mitty, who is now free to carry on with his deceptions.

That's the story as I understand it. Flying Lawyer, who was to defend this reptile may be able to add more, and/or correct my facts.

He's a mason!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He sounds like a very lucky man to me!

One thing that puzzles me - and I know nothing about Police ASU's or Helicopters - but surely, 5 hours line training in a 135 must be construed as gaining a pecuniary advantage?

The sad thing is that as Arkroyal so rightly said; that in the current society, someone is going to get the blame for this one and it sure as hell won't be the guy in the wrong! :(

Newspaper report today
Remember the usual warnings about media reporting of aviation matters.

Don't British law enforcement agencies do extensive "background checks" on their civilian pilots? In the U.S., this prospective applicant would be intestigated extensively, similar to a MOD security clearance vetting.

Typically in California, approximately 40 man-hours would be spent on the investigation. This would include criminal records checks (through fingerprints), FAA records check, confirming education, training, credit check, talking in person to former employers, teachers, and references, PLUS additional references developed independently during the investigation.

Talking about "egg on their face" if the above accounts are accurate!


Very sad indeed.
:o :o :o

Check 6

Ah... but the above account is not accurate, as neither was the piece shown last night on local TV which showed Lamb as the wronged party, almost forced against his will to fly the helo.

By my understanding, he feigned cancer to avoid having to produce his licence to the unit chief pilot, and to cover his deception. The deception included that he had been an airline pilot, that he owned his own EC120. This guy was interviewed for a full time job with the unit, and at no time volunteered the information that he was not qualified for it until cornered like a rat.

If he was interviewed for a job I would have thought that his licence would have been checked at the same time!If it was not checked that is still of course no excuse for his deception and inexcusable conduct.

Crab, agree with you. You would have thought that a professional unit like this could never let it happen.

I know that doesn't excuse the guy, but it could be that he got himself in too deep and couldn't get out. The cancer thing us unfortunate (if it's true) but the Chief Pilot should never have been so easily misled.

crab

Agreed, but this guy was a conman, remember. He (according to a source) produced photocopies at the time because he'd left the originals in his helicopter, which his mate had taken to France........etc. etc.

He was bound to be discovered, which is why the judge dropped the case.

I'm glad I'd left by then, as I can't be sure I wouldn't have been taken in. Conmen are very convincing.

I just hope the CAA do him for exceeding the privileges of his licence, or worse. Give FL another nice little earner :D

Mmm, not sure sure about the photocopy thing cos surely you would ask to keep them or at least take copies for your records, after all, it's your but on the line too! Plus, surely the Unit manager must have been involved and would have needed to give approval. If they'd not let him do anything until they'd seen his licence the whole sorry mess would never have happened. Is it not an AOC undertaking to keep a copy of line pilots records.

Mark Lamb is obviously a good conman, and deceived people being kind to him which in my book makes him an even bigger ****. But I can't see how could he produce photocopies of an ATPL(H) he hasn't got? Does a PPL(H) look anything the same?

Maybe it was a typo, how could the judge 'drop' the case?
I don't think a judge can do that. (Any legal eagles correct me if I'm wrong.) It must have been the CPS who dropped it at the last minute. They'd only do that if they were outmanoevred insome way. It seems to be coming out bit by bit so we'll probably get to the bottom of this fiasco eventually.

Also, I was told this afternoon the PPL actually flew live sorties as well as training flights. Don't know if it's true, but I was assured it was.
And he made up the 'cancer' story to get out of it without losing face when they offered him a permanent job and wanted to see his ATPL.

I'd like to know how this sh1t off. :mad:

Don't think the PPL looks anything like the ATPL. Surely you'd check that he had a 135 ticket?

Alty

The licence pages would be very similar, and easily doctored such that a photocopy would look pukka.

My understanding is that the judge said that he reckoned there was no case, but that the CPS could still bring it. Hardly the best start to a case they were then sure to lose.

Hopefully the CAA can take over where the old bill left off.

Nopax! Excellent, nearly missed that, and oddly enough something similar may have been muttered by the losing side:D

Now, since Mr Lamb lives about 100 yards away, I'll pop round and try to get a job in IT:eek:

If other people have got what I've got from the CAA then yes, it's easily forged.

Perhaps if I get bored at work one day, I'll rustle up a comedy version with every single rating as a little joke for my flying buddies. :)

Some of you are huffing and puffing too much. Where is your sense of good ol' British humour in all of this debacle? If this had happened in Ireland with the Garda (Police) Air Support Unit a lot of you would have been laughing your heads off. :rolleyes:

I am inclined to agree with Tom...you´d have to be a bit strait-laced not to see the funny side of it.I dont see too much harm in the judge´s decision but his licence should be ripped up.

Surely being a mason wouldn`t get him any preferential treatment from our legal system---------------------would it?

Unfortunately accidents do happen with Police/Air Ambulance helicopters. What would the press have made of it if Lamb had had an accident on one of the opersational sorties he flew?

This is one case where the CAA ought to get the support of the aviation community in bringing a prosecuion.

HMMMM!, I see, an alleged fraud, very bad chap to do such a thing.

Of course the charge cleverly beaten by the fact that fraud did not legally occur.
One does not get justice in a court romm, one gets law.

BUT, what did the CAA and the OLD BILL do to the prats that did not do a proper background check on this Walter Mitty, What was done about the prats that let him lose in the chopper. Surely their lack of proper checks prior to letting Mitty lose should have attracted at least a charge of aiding and abetting the commission of various offences. Seems to me that the employers were the real offenders!!!!!!!!!!:rolleyes:

Plenty of time for setting up speed traps, but few checks on who gets to fly their expensive toys. Whoops.

Personally I'm surprised that a PPL could fake such knowledge unless he is already very experienced. It's hard to feign knowledge of flying different aircraft when you are actually put to the test. I find it hard enough sometimes remembering how to fly machines that I have trained on properly!

Don't expect Flying Lawyer to get involved in this one.
Client confidentiality may give him a good reason (or excuse!) to keep below the parapet on this one. ;)

R

I've heard that the EC135 is categorised as a "simple" helicopter and so it must be if this guy (I say again"if") was a qualified EC120 pilot. Is there much similarity between the two - I mean helicopters not licences?

Draco's guess was right.
I'm restricted in how much I can say about this case at the moment. As you've read, the Defendant still faces a CAA investigation.
And yes, it was very tempting to "keep below the parapet" on this one but it would be wrong of me not to correct some points made so far. Also, the press report isn't entirely accurate.

• The Judge did not stop or 'drop' the case.
• The defendant faced 6 different charges. During legal argument at the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution had to concede that they simply did not have the evidence to support 5 of them. To succeed, they would have to prove that the Defendant was to be paid (ie a "pecuniary advantage") for the operational flights he performed. Closer examination of the evidence confirmed the Defence argument: There was no agreement that he was ever going to receive payment for those flights, therefore he had not obtained a pecuniary advantage. The Prosecution conceded the point and Not Guilty verdicts were recorded.
• The Prosecution then applied to add a completely new charge to the indictment namely that he had dishonestly obtained 'services' (training) by deception. The Judge was agreeable in principle to this application. However, we argued the new charge was based upon a misinterpretation of the relevant law which requires there to have been an agreement or understanding that the services obtained would be paid for. After further legal argument, the Prosecution again conceded that was correct, and that they could not prove this essential element of the offence because there was no agreement that he would pay for his training. The Prosecution withdrew the application to add the new charge.
• That left one charge remaining. At our request, the Judge asked the Prosecution to say precisely how it put the case on the one remaining charge. This is not unusual; the Defence are entitled to know what case they are answering. When it was explained, the Judge invited the Prosecution to reconsider whether there was a realistic prospect of any jury convicting on the available evidence. Having done so, the Prosecution did not proceed.
• There was no evidence or allegation by any prosecution witness from the ASU that the Defendant had produced a forged, altered or photocopied ATPL.

As to that last remaining charge, the Prosecution was realistic in concluding the chances of a conviction were extremely remote: The Defendant's case was that he only put in a job application because he'd then be allowed to fly with the Unit as 'training' whilst his application was being considered, and he always realised he could never be offered the job unless he produced his ATPL etc.
To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage. (If he had been offered the contract, the offence would have been complete at that point. Withdrawing later would be mitigation, but not a defence.)
In theory, the Prosecution could have alleged an attempt to obtain the job. However, on the facts of this particular case, they would then have to prove he was actually attempting to obtain the job (rather than free rides and training) without being able to provide any of the items referred to above. Dishonest he may have been, complete fool he clearly is not.
If I couldn't secure an acquittal on that remaining charge in those circumstances, I'd think it was time to hang up my wig and gown and apply for a job with the CAA. (Not that they'd have me! :D )

The Prosecution was informed some months ago that the Defendant did not dispute anything said by the ASU personnel. It was agreed that the CV he submittedwith his job application was almost entirely fantasy. The sole issue was whether the evidence proved the charges brought.
We saw there were fatal flaws in the Prosecution case, but it's not the Defence role to help the Prosecution. The law on 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage' is notoriously difficult. It needs careful consideration, but it's not impossible.
Nor is it the Defence role to tell the police how to investigate properly.

The Defendant never denied he'd behaved thoroughly dishonestly, and very badly towards those who befriended him. He issued a statement of apology to the ASU for all the trouble he'd caused them, explaining that what started as silly boasting got completely out of hand over many months. He volunteered to pay the cost of the traing flights he was given. On legal advice, he pleaded Not Guilty for the very good reason that he wasn't guilty of the criminal offences brought against him.

The Court process worked properly and fairly. No defendant ever has to prove his innocence. The Prosecution bring charges and therefore have the burden of proving them. If they bring the wrong charges, or don't have the necessary evidence, they fail.

As to the investigating and prosecuting process, I say only that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the CID officers who carried out the investigation find themselves back in uniform directing traffic if the Chief Constable reviews this case. The CPS should have spotted the problems when deciding the appropriate charges but, as I've said, that particular offence has frequently caused problems.

Note: I have responded with the consent of the Defendant and my instructing solicitor. The comments are mine. They didn't ask to see and approve them.

Tudor Owen

What a story! And yet when you begin to look at the detail you can see how it might/could/did happen. I have certainly been around a few flying schools and charter outfits that have been hoodwinked by conmen - the good ones are very very plausible. I can think of two lessons to learn:

Do the paperwork checks before you do anything further. When I was involved in flying training and self-fly hire we would not begin to do even dual training without sight of the licence original;

If you ever get into legal difficulty, use FL as your barrister!

Incidentally, the CAA licences are a bit of a joke when you think of something like this - not even an ID photo. The only way of verifying that the guy with a licence in his sticky mitt is the "holder" of the licence is to ask him to show you his signature - hardly bullet-proof security! I hate passport photos cos I am so ugly, but it is the very lowest standard that seems acceptable.

I'd have to agree. It certainly looks like FL knows what he's doing.

I feel very sorry for the guys at the Unit who have been dragged into this one, but they did kind of bring it on themselves.
I fly the 135 too, and I'd have to say that if he can impress the likes of a unit chief pilot, he must be a good pilot (not excusing what he did for a moment - don't shoot me) as it's not quite the same as an EC120 by a long way.

What chance a new charge of "Wasting Police Time"...

Hmmm,

Next London Layover, gonna have to pop in on the cops and get me some free Helicopter time...

Cheers
Wino

Latest installment from my source is the PPL visited the ASU twice a week at least for a year or so before he got any flights. Says he has his own company (true) he's selling (not true), his own EC120 (not true), is freelance heli pilot (not true). All very friendly, but no pax on police ops flights so no rides.
The shiny new 135 arrives, and he learns the numbers with everybody else. Then a vacancy is coming up and, if he's an applicant, he can ride with them as 'famil flights' etc.
He applies with a CV which puts him in Nick Lappos/John Farley league and, boom boom, gets to ride in a police 135! They like him, want to help him so he's offered line training to fill the only gap in his fantastic CV, he's never been a police pilot. He's been a PPL for 10-15 years, and gets though his Line Check with good scores.

I can see how it happened. I think he wanted the rides. How could he ever get the job?
BUT even if it wasn't a criminal offence, he must have known if the brown stuff hit the fan the guys in the ASU who'd been so good to him would be covered in it. :mad:

FL

Thanks for such a detailed and enlightening post. Just about wraps this up until and unless the CAA take it further.

As to the existence or not of a dodgy ATPL, I can only quote my sources. It would seem our man wasn't daft enough to leave it behind.

Daft he certainly isn't but I can't get inside the mind of someone who so deliberately, in order to gain for himself a 'go in a helicopter', dropped so many who regarded him as a friend in the poo.

The Law is an ass, but as it stands, his excellently chosen barrister had no problem in getting him off. The CPS, once again are made to look amateurish and foolish. Interesting that FL describes the scrote as dishonest. I wonder how many times barristers find themselves in this kind of situation. Kind of highlights that Law and Justice are not necessarily good pals.

Quite interesting comparing the two worlds of Law and aviation. Aviation is all about safety and huge efforts are made to eliminate accidents through the sharing of information.Yet in the legal world the opposite seems to be the case.

Twice the Flying Lawyer reckons he knew the prosecution were going to crash; "It's not the defense role to help the prosecution" and "Nor is it the defense role to tell the police how to investigate properly".
It's a shame that this knowledge couldn't be shared and be put to good use. It might stop this type of 'accident' from happening again.

But I am being naive, and there is no doubt the Flying Lawyer is brilliant at the Law stuff. Makes amazing reading. Just hope the real not guilty guys don't have to pay for it.

FL

Thanks for the explanation.

It seems that the prosection was incompetent, you were a whizz and a selfish con-man made a lot of people look stupid. Another outstanding case of legal form taking precedence over real world issues, just like the man jailed for recovering abandoned golf balls except the other way around.

I hope that, at the very least, the whole case cost the chap a great deal of money, or don't tell me, the long-suffering taxpayer ended up footing the defence bill too??? :(

R

What gets me is the lack of moral obligation on a broader scale. Say, for example, you saw an aircraft taxiing out with the control locks still in place, you couldn't say oh well, it's not for me to tell the pilot what to do. That's obvious to everyone here.
But how about a slightly lesser extreme; you operate in the GA enviroment and see a competing outfit who's aircraft has a minor defect that will result in an expensive but non fatal or harmful incident. By keeping quiet you know the result will be financial reward for you. Again it's obvious, I hope, that that wouldn't happen, but in the legal world keeping quiet means you win and get well rewarded for it too. That's their only moral obligation.
Just as well O.J. didn't give me a call.
I know I would make a useless lawyer. Just as well I'm not one!

Someone needs their rear kicked over this Walter Mitty character...but don't let the Brit's claim a monopoly in unqualified pilots getting jobs without a licence.

Do you remember the Florida major airline FO who, on passing all the hoops for command, was found a bit short in the paperwork department? Never mind the Brit just having a Private licence, this American joker didn't even have one of those.

The whole incident was so embarrassing for both the company and the Feds that it never went to court.

Yep it happened to PANAM in the 40s, and to Matson Airways in the 40s as was well documented in Ernie Gann's spectacular book "Fate is the Hunter."

It is for these and other similar cases that the "trust but verify" doctrine of mandatory 5-10 year background checks came about, which are supposedly required before anyone can turn a motor.

British airlines I believe operate under similar stringent background check requirements, and I find it ironic that the police whom are charged with carrying out the law didn't employ similar checks. To me its a lot like the congressman getting back from the 12 martini lunch just in time to vote on the Blood Alchohol Testing for all transport workers. Could you imagine if a security company involved in transporting money operated like that? "Ummmm I'ld like a job driving an armored truck, preferably one with a lot of money in it." And these are harmless humor. Fifth columnists, sign up now...

Come on and lighten up, in this case you just have to giggle atleast a little.

Cheers
Wino

This case should never have been brought.

The CPS are so stretched in resources and competence that they missed the vital point in this case
as put by Tudor Owen

"To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage"

If the man still lives in the police area he will have to ensure that his driving is perfect at all times!!

I forgot to mention that Mr Lamb was smart enough to ensure his solicitor got him a good lawyer with aviation knowledge. I wonder if that knowledge came from PPRune?