Virgin Pilot held on Drink allegations
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>Does anyone have any information to suggest that this man has failed any objective test at all? If he hasn't, what the bloody hell is going on?!!<<
Well, according to the article below, he blew a 0.11. Assuming this result was accurate, his best hope for getting off is a technical error (like a missing signature) somewhere in the paperwork. A Delta pilot in Norfolk, Virginia copped a walk on state drunk flying charges due to a procedural error earlier this year.
Looks like that much maligned "security employee" may have made a very good call from a safety point of view. Of course, as always, some will claim it was mouthwash, breath mints, or overripe fruit that may have caused the breath test reading. I wish I could believe them.
I would not be surprised to see him "voluntarily" enter rehab based on other cases I am familiar with. This gives you some protection under U.S. law, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the MIA America West crew.
Some other press reports have claimed that Virgin is (are) paying his legal expenses. Is it really Balpa as mentioned in this article?
________________________________________
Virgin Atlantic Pilot Failed Breath Test
By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 24, 2003; Page A04
A breath test given to a Virgin Atlantic Airways pilot shortly before he was to fly a planeload of passengers to London last Friday showed a blood alcohol level of 0.11, according to court documents. That is more than twice the limit set by federal regulations and above the legal limit for driving a car in any state.
Capt. [redacted], who was removed from the cockpit of a Boeing 747 at Dulles International Airport, is charged under a state law with attempting to operate an aircraft under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Virginia's drunken-driving statute, which sets a blood-alcohol limit of 0.08, state law does not specify a legal limit for flying.
The Federal Aviation Administration, which also will investigate the incident, sets a limit of 0.04 and forbids flying a plane within eight hours of taking a drink. [redacted] holds a British pilot's license, and if the FAA finds that he violated its regulations, that information will be forwarded to Britain's Civilian Aviation Authority.
Former FAA chief counsel Kenneth Quinn said British regulations are similar to FAA regulations but not as specific.
Breath tests are considered preliminary, and Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert D. Anderson said they generally are not admissible in court. Documents filed in the Loudoun County court case do not disclose the results of a test done on [redacted]'s blood.
Passengers had not boarded when [redacted], 55, was taken off the plane about five minutes before flight time. A security employee at the airport had reported smelling alcohol on his breath, according to a spokesman for the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority.
According to court documents, a sergeant with the authority police found [redacted] in his captain's chair, smelling strongly of alcohol, and then saw him stumble as he left the cockpit. The documents said that [redacted] was cooperative after his arrest and that when asked whether he had an alcohol or drug problem, he responded, "No, I do not."
[redacted], a 14-year employee of the airline, was released from the Loudoun County jail on Monday after posting $25,000 bond -- provided by his union, the British Air Line Pilots Association -- and surrendering his passport. [redacted], a U.S. citizen who lives with his wife and two children in London, was placed on administrative leave with pay and ordered to stay in the United States.
His attorneys argued in court Monday that he should be released on his own recognizance and allowed to go home. In documents supporting their arguments, they said he has taken heart medication since having triple-bypass surgery. They also said [redacted] worked for Trans World Airline for 15 years before being hired by Virgin Atlantic.
Thomas C. Hill,one of [redacted]'s attorneys, said yesterday that the captain has "an exemplary record with no incidents of any kind. . . . When all the facts and circumstances are known, it will be shown that Captain [redacted] never intended to violate any laws."
More than 380 passengers and 17 crew members were scheduled to make the flight, which was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered passengers hotel accommodations for the night before flying them to London on Saturday. They also were given vouchers for a free flight anywhere the airline flies.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec23.html
Well, according to the article below, he blew a 0.11. Assuming this result was accurate, his best hope for getting off is a technical error (like a missing signature) somewhere in the paperwork. A Delta pilot in Norfolk, Virginia copped a walk on state drunk flying charges due to a procedural error earlier this year.
Looks like that much maligned "security employee" may have made a very good call from a safety point of view. Of course, as always, some will claim it was mouthwash, breath mints, or overripe fruit that may have caused the breath test reading. I wish I could believe them.
I would not be surprised to see him "voluntarily" enter rehab based on other cases I am familiar with. This gives you some protection under U.S. law, e.g. Rush Limbaugh and the MIA America West crew.
Some other press reports have claimed that Virgin is (are) paying his legal expenses. Is it really Balpa as mentioned in this article?
________________________________________
Virgin Atlantic Pilot Failed Breath Test
By Rosalind S. Helderman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 24, 2003; Page A04
A breath test given to a Virgin Atlantic Airways pilot shortly before he was to fly a planeload of passengers to London last Friday showed a blood alcohol level of 0.11, according to court documents. That is more than twice the limit set by federal regulations and above the legal limit for driving a car in any state.
Capt. [redacted], who was removed from the cockpit of a Boeing 747 at Dulles International Airport, is charged under a state law with attempting to operate an aircraft under the influence of alcohol. Unlike Virginia's drunken-driving statute, which sets a blood-alcohol limit of 0.08, state law does not specify a legal limit for flying.
The Federal Aviation Administration, which also will investigate the incident, sets a limit of 0.04 and forbids flying a plane within eight hours of taking a drink. [redacted] holds a British pilot's license, and if the FAA finds that he violated its regulations, that information will be forwarded to Britain's Civilian Aviation Authority.
Former FAA chief counsel Kenneth Quinn said British regulations are similar to FAA regulations but not as specific.
Breath tests are considered preliminary, and Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert D. Anderson said they generally are not admissible in court. Documents filed in the Loudoun County court case do not disclose the results of a test done on [redacted]'s blood.
Passengers had not boarded when [redacted], 55, was taken off the plane about five minutes before flight time. A security employee at the airport had reported smelling alcohol on his breath, according to a spokesman for the Washington Metropolitan Airports Authority.
According to court documents, a sergeant with the authority police found [redacted] in his captain's chair, smelling strongly of alcohol, and then saw him stumble as he left the cockpit. The documents said that [redacted] was cooperative after his arrest and that when asked whether he had an alcohol or drug problem, he responded, "No, I do not."
[redacted], a 14-year employee of the airline, was released from the Loudoun County jail on Monday after posting $25,000 bond -- provided by his union, the British Air Line Pilots Association -- and surrendering his passport. [redacted], a U.S. citizen who lives with his wife and two children in London, was placed on administrative leave with pay and ordered to stay in the United States.
His attorneys argued in court Monday that he should be released on his own recognizance and allowed to go home. In documents supporting their arguments, they said he has taken heart medication since having triple-bypass surgery. They also said [redacted] worked for Trans World Airline for 15 years before being hired by Virgin Atlantic.
Thomas C. Hill,one of [redacted]'s attorneys, said yesterday that the captain has "an exemplary record with no incidents of any kind. . . . When all the facts and circumstances are known, it will be shown that Captain [redacted] never intended to violate any laws."
More than 380 passengers and 17 crew members were scheduled to make the flight, which was canceled after [redacted]'s arrest. The airline offered passengers hotel accommodations for the night before flying them to London on Saturday. They also were given vouchers for a free flight anywhere the airline flies.
A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Feb. 3.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec23.html
Last edited by Airbubba; 24th Dec 2003 at 15:07.
"Breath tests are considered preliminary, and Loudoun County Commonwealth's Attorney Robert D. Anderson said they generally are not admissible in court. Documents filed in the Loudoun County court case do not disclose the results of a test done on (****)'s blood. "
Why do they not disclose this?
I hope that the defence is keeping its powder dry and will be able to rip the prosecution apart in February. But why does it take so long in the US?
Why do they not disclose this?
I hope that the defence is keeping its powder dry and will be able to rip the prosecution apart in February. But why does it take so long in the US?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lots of different places!
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one small point.............
It's amazing just how many folk are saying that they could smell "Alcohol"........I wonder how? Afterall, alcohol in it's natural form is odourless!
May be they should be smelling "Intoxicating Liquor"??
Just making a point!
C.N.
It's amazing just how many folk are saying that they could smell "Alcohol"........I wonder how? Afterall, alcohol in it's natural form is odourless!
May be they should be smelling "Intoxicating Liquor"??
Just making a point!
C.N.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: luton,geneva,tokyo
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Works better in Japan
In the company dispatch offices in Japan, there is a breathaliser. If anyone supects a crew member of being unfit through alcohol, this device is produced and the crew member tested. If positive he doesn't operate.
Very discrete - no sackings - no newspapers and no recriminations. Safe though......
Very discrete - no sackings - no newspapers and no recriminations. Safe though......
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Are you not judging US law on ours?
I agree it seems the bail conditions are exessive and to object to bail for this matter is down right stupid, but again that may be because i am used to our system.
I seem to recall photos of Maxine Carr from when she was charged being relaesed, and no one complained obout that, or Huntley being named when they were charged. At that stage they should have been considered just as innocent.
I am NOT, before anyone starts to complain, comparing the those 2 with this pilot. Just wwondering why one rule for one etc......
Are you not judging US law on ours?
I agree it seems the bail conditions are exessive and to object to bail for this matter is down right stupid, but again that may be because i am used to our system.
I seem to recall photos of Maxine Carr from when she was charged being relaesed, and no one complained obout that, or Huntley being named when they were charged. At that stage they should have been considered just as innocent.
I am NOT, before anyone starts to complain, comparing the those 2 with this pilot. Just wwondering why one rule for one etc......
Guest
Posts: n/a
In documents supporting their arguments, they said he has taken heart medication since having triple-bypass surgery.
"The judge also ordered [redacted] to surrender his passport, as the defense argued the pilot suffers a heart condition and needs to get home to London to see his cardiologist.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"medication since having triple-bypass surgery"
What a good thing you deleted the unkind and sarcastic comment you made about his heart problems in an earlier post then, Airbubba?
----------
BEagle
Possibly because the results of the analysis hadn't been received from the lab when the documents were filed.
----------
I have no idea whether the man is guilty or innocent - but what extraordinary notions of justice they have in Virginia!
First they give the Press a photograph of the pilot taken in custody.
Now, the Press are told the contents of documents filed with the court, some of which "generally are not admissible" as evidence.
So let's tell the Press instead?
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Airport Authority is making statements to the Press about a case which has yet to be tried in court?
I was in Virginia a couple of months ago. Beautiful state - but I'm very relieved I didn't do anything which might have led to my being prosecuted there.
[Edit]
bjcc
Sorry, I inadvertently deleted my post when editing so your response and my post are now out of sync.
No, I'm judging what's happening in Virginia against what I consider to be justice and fairness to people charged with offences.
I agree there's an increasing tendency for our police to say/give far too much to the Press and, IMHO, it's very troubling. No question of double standards - I think it was disgraceful that photographs of a defendant taken in police custody, copies of exhibits and even videos of police interviews were leaked to the Press in the case you mention.
What a good thing you deleted the unkind and sarcastic comment you made about his heart problems in an earlier post then, Airbubba?
----------
BEagle
Possibly because the results of the analysis hadn't been received from the lab when the documents were filed.
----------
I have no idea whether the man is guilty or innocent - but what extraordinary notions of justice they have in Virginia!
First they give the Press a photograph of the pilot taken in custody.
Now, the Press are told the contents of documents filed with the court, some of which "generally are not admissible" as evidence.
So let's tell the Press instead?
Meanwhile, a spokesman for the Airport Authority is making statements to the Press about a case which has yet to be tried in court?
I was in Virginia a couple of months ago. Beautiful state - but I'm very relieved I didn't do anything which might have led to my being prosecuted there.
[Edit]
bjcc
Sorry, I inadvertently deleted my post when editing so your response and my post are now out of sync.
No, I'm judging what's happening in Virginia against what I consider to be justice and fairness to people charged with offences.
I agree there's an increasing tendency for our police to say/give far too much to the Press and, IMHO, it's very troubling. No question of double standards - I think it was disgraceful that photographs of a defendant taken in police custody, copies of exhibits and even videos of police interviews were leaked to the Press in the case you mention.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 24th Dec 2003 at 19:28.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>What a good thing you deleted the unkind and sarcastic comment you made about his heart problems in an earlier post then, Airbubba?<<
Please refresh my memory.
The defense lawyer was trying to emphasize what poor heath the prisoner was in order to obtain bail. I do find it a little ironic to claim that the man is too sick to be in jail but well enough to command a 747 across the Atlantic. I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well. But hey, it worked, I suppose.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with mug shots, take a look here for some classics:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html
Most documents concerning court proceedings and arrests are publicly available in the U.S. unless sealed by a judge.
Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country?
The accused pilot is an American facing trial in an American court. Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly?
Please refresh my memory.
The defense lawyer was trying to emphasize what poor heath the prisoner was in order to obtain bail. I do find it a little ironic to claim that the man is too sick to be in jail but well enough to command a 747 across the Atlantic. I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well. But hey, it worked, I suppose.
Since you seem to be unfamiliar with mug shots, take a look here for some classics:
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/mugshots/index.html
Most documents concerning court proceedings and arrests are publicly available in the U.S. unless sealed by a judge.
Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country?
The accused pilot is an American facing trial in an American court. Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly?
Last edited by Airbubba; 24th Dec 2003 at 23:19.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
In this media age where everyone gets to tell their story to the press (WHILE NOT UNDER OATH I MIGHT ADD) the perp walk (pictures of the alledged criminal being brought in in handcuffs) have become something of a tradition that the prosecution uses to counter the inevitable press release of the perp being more holy than mother terresa. Do I like it? Nope...
There is a fair amount of spin that goes on before a trial in high profile cases. I don't know how much it actually effects the outcome, but you should read a very good book by Thomas Wolf called "Bonfire of the Vanities" It was made into an okay moving strarring Tom Hanks and Melanie griffiths that was outright suppressed by the liberal media because it painted Al Sharpton for the lieing thug that he is... Its fiction, but consider it historical fiction and will give you a good idea of what drives some prosecutions.
Also, while I am not comfortable with the steep bail here, the charges apparently are quite severe in this state. However, often they get overturned later because when a state makes an anti aviation law they are often over stepping their authority and taking actions that are reserved for the federal government. The problem is you first have to convict someone of this before you can declare it unconstitutional (usually).
Oh and one other thing that we do differently. A cornerstone of American justice and the chief protection from the government is PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COURTS. That's why David Dinkin's plan to move the courts out to Rikers Island (a prison Island in NY harbor where most NY criminals are held) in order to save the 100s of millions of dollars they spend a year transporting criminals from Rikers to Manhattan criminal courts was such a dangerous plan. There would have been no public access, then you are like a banana republic, Strait from your show trial to your punishment without ever seeing the light of day...
But that public access to the courts may make things seam a little more open than they do in the crown courts... So more makes it into the news.
Cheers
Wino
In this media age where everyone gets to tell their story to the press (WHILE NOT UNDER OATH I MIGHT ADD) the perp walk (pictures of the alledged criminal being brought in in handcuffs) have become something of a tradition that the prosecution uses to counter the inevitable press release of the perp being more holy than mother terresa. Do I like it? Nope...
There is a fair amount of spin that goes on before a trial in high profile cases. I don't know how much it actually effects the outcome, but you should read a very good book by Thomas Wolf called "Bonfire of the Vanities" It was made into an okay moving strarring Tom Hanks and Melanie griffiths that was outright suppressed by the liberal media because it painted Al Sharpton for the lieing thug that he is... Its fiction, but consider it historical fiction and will give you a good idea of what drives some prosecutions.
Also, while I am not comfortable with the steep bail here, the charges apparently are quite severe in this state. However, often they get overturned later because when a state makes an anti aviation law they are often over stepping their authority and taking actions that are reserved for the federal government. The problem is you first have to convict someone of this before you can declare it unconstitutional (usually).
Oh and one other thing that we do differently. A cornerstone of American justice and the chief protection from the government is PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE COURTS. That's why David Dinkin's plan to move the courts out to Rikers Island (a prison Island in NY harbor where most NY criminals are held) in order to save the 100s of millions of dollars they spend a year transporting criminals from Rikers to Manhattan criminal courts was such a dangerous plan. There would have been no public access, then you are like a banana republic, Strait from your show trial to your punishment without ever seeing the light of day...
But that public access to the courts may make things seam a little more open than they do in the crown courts... So more makes it into the news.
Cheers
Wino
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With rgds to any existing heart condition, whatever it is, the guy has a Class 1 medical so it has been assessed as OK for him to command 747. Numerous days in prison, with all the protracted stress that might bring is, I would suggest, a different matter.
Not really for this forum to speculate nor much room for further debate on that issue is there?
Heart bypass ops are almost routine these days and there are plenty of very healthy people out there who have had it done.
A relative of mine, who had one several years ago, says he wishes he had it much earlier as he has never felt fitter.
Not really for this forum to speculate nor much room for further debate on that issue is there?
Heart bypass ops are almost routine these days and there are plenty of very healthy people out there who have had it done.
A relative of mine, who had one several years ago, says he wishes he had it much earlier as he has never felt fitter.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Here is the section of Virginia law covering drunk flying. As Wino points out, sometimes these state laws get thrown out due to conflicts in jurisdiction with federal laws regulating air commerce.
Drunk flying is considered a felony charge in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
_______________________________________________
§ 5.1-13. Operation of aircraft while under influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs; reckless operation.
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic or any habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years, or, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the case, be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, § 5-10.1; 1964, c. 416; 1966, c. 576.)
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/lst/LH805571.HTM
Drunk flying is considered a felony charge in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
_______________________________________________
§ 5.1-13. Operation of aircraft while under influence of intoxicating liquors or drugs; reckless operation.
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or of any narcotic or any habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a felony and shall be confined in a state correctional facility not less than one nor more than five years, or, in the discretion of the court or jury trying the case, be confined in jail not exceeding twelve months and fined not exceeding $500, or both such fine and imprisonment.
Any person who shall operate any aircraft within the airspace over, above or upon the lands or waters of this Commonwealth carelessly or heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others, or without due caution and circumspection and in a manner so as to endanger any person or property, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(Code 1950, § 5-10.1; 1964, c. 416; 1966, c. 576.)
http://leg1.state.va.us/000/lst/LH805571.HTM
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbubba
"I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well."
No doubt they do, (Capt.KAOS for one) but they may be a little more understanding that the Captain and his lawyer used every possible argument in support of the application for bail, even if some were better than others. They may even be pleased he wasn't kept locked up in prison while he awaits his trial. He may be guilty and, if so, sympathy for him will inevitably and understandably disappear but, at the moment, he hasn't been convicted.
"But hey, it worked, I suppose."
I doubt it. It's more likely the court thought the prosecutor's arguments for keeping a respectable and unconvicted man in prison were even weaker than the defence 'health' argument for releasing him.
"Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country?"
Of course. Does that mean I shouldn't criticise aspects of another country's system which I think are unjust. I criticise aspects of our system with which I disagree.
"Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly?"
I haven't implied anything. I've said so in unequivocal terms. I have no reason to suppose his trial won't be fair. My criticism has been of those in authority feeding the media circus, with complete disregard for him and his family, while he awaits that trial.
BTW, I don't think your snide "mere pilots, not lawyers" remark will cut much ice on this forum. My respect for professional pilots is well-known to regulars on Pprune.
Wino
I'm not cricising Press pictures of an accused being brought to court, only the authorities (whether police or prison) giving the Press copies of pictures taken in custody - in this case, an official photograph of the pilot, an unconvicted man, in prison garb. I can't see how the public interest or the interests of justice, can be served by giving such pictures to the Press.
From what you say, it appears practices in America are very different from ours. Here, prosecution lawyers would not respond to defence press releases, do not engage in a newspaper/media spin battle and would certainly not discuss the evidence with journos. Some police officers improperly give information to journos 'off the record' pre-trial, but prosecution lawyers don't. Indeed, the Press has to be very careful what it publishes pre-trial or risk being in contempt of court. eg If journos are present at preliminary hearings here, they are free to record what's said including any discussions about the evidence, but they aren't permitted to publish until after the trial.
Giving the Press information for publicaton before the trial which will not be admissible in evidence before the jury which tries him is, IMHO, very dangerous. Such information is only published here after trial, if at all.
In case there's any misunderstanding, all our criminal courts are open to the public unless, truly exceptionally, national security is at risk. eg Espionage prosecutions. I wonder where the idea of that 'cornerstone of American justice' came from?
T. O.
(Good to meet you last weekend. Sorry it was so brief.)
"I think some others here (mere pilots, not lawyers) find that ironic as well."
No doubt they do, (Capt.KAOS for one) but they may be a little more understanding that the Captain and his lawyer used every possible argument in support of the application for bail, even if some were better than others. They may even be pleased he wasn't kept locked up in prison while he awaits his trial. He may be guilty and, if so, sympathy for him will inevitably and understandably disappear but, at the moment, he hasn't been convicted.
"But hey, it worked, I suppose."
I doubt it. It's more likely the court thought the prosecutor's arguments for keeping a respectable and unconvicted man in prison were even weaker than the defence 'health' argument for releasing him.
"Surely you must realize that the legal system in different in each country?"
Of course. Does that mean I shouldn't criticise aspects of another country's system which I think are unjust. I criticise aspects of our system with which I disagree.
"Are you already implying that he is being treated unfairly?"
I haven't implied anything. I've said so in unequivocal terms. I have no reason to suppose his trial won't be fair. My criticism has been of those in authority feeding the media circus, with complete disregard for him and his family, while he awaits that trial.
BTW, I don't think your snide "mere pilots, not lawyers" remark will cut much ice on this forum. My respect for professional pilots is well-known to regulars on Pprune.
Wino
I'm not cricising Press pictures of an accused being brought to court, only the authorities (whether police or prison) giving the Press copies of pictures taken in custody - in this case, an official photograph of the pilot, an unconvicted man, in prison garb. I can't see how the public interest or the interests of justice, can be served by giving such pictures to the Press.
From what you say, it appears practices in America are very different from ours. Here, prosecution lawyers would not respond to defence press releases, do not engage in a newspaper/media spin battle and would certainly not discuss the evidence with journos. Some police officers improperly give information to journos 'off the record' pre-trial, but prosecution lawyers don't. Indeed, the Press has to be very careful what it publishes pre-trial or risk being in contempt of court. eg If journos are present at preliminary hearings here, they are free to record what's said including any discussions about the evidence, but they aren't permitted to publish until after the trial.
Giving the Press information for publicaton before the trial which will not be admissible in evidence before the jury which tries him is, IMHO, very dangerous. Such information is only published here after trial, if at all.
In case there's any misunderstanding, all our criminal courts are open to the public unless, truly exceptionally, national security is at risk. eg Espionage prosecutions. I wonder where the idea of that 'cornerstone of American justice' came from?
T. O.
(Good to meet you last weekend. Sorry it was so brief.)
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 25th Dec 2003 at 02:51.
Union Goon
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that the prosecuters can say anything that is patently false. But they sure can engage in a little spin now and then, to make sure someone doesn't arrive in court as a saint...
There have been a couple of very high profile cases that were probably spun by the defense to allow them to go free. (OJ, and few others come to mind)
But the real problem in a high profile case is that often they are overcharged because someone is making a political statement.
The other problem is the tendancy to overcharge a case to get a perp to plead guilty to what they really were guilty of. (Louise Woodward comes to mind in that). Its actually gotten so bad that I am starting to think that maybe plea bargains aren't such a good idea... I am aware of the backlog of cases so I don't have an easy solution however...
Cheers
Wino
PS. It was a bleedin shame we didn't have a few hours over a few pints. Maybe next time... You could come to the coming NY bash in April...
There have been a couple of very high profile cases that were probably spun by the defense to allow them to go free. (OJ, and few others come to mind)
But the real problem in a high profile case is that often they are overcharged because someone is making a political statement.
The other problem is the tendancy to overcharge a case to get a perp to plead guilty to what they really were guilty of. (Louise Woodward comes to mind in that). Its actually gotten so bad that I am starting to think that maybe plea bargains aren't such a good idea... I am aware of the backlog of cases so I don't have an easy solution however...
Cheers
Wino
PS. It was a bleedin shame we didn't have a few hours over a few pints. Maybe next time... You could come to the coming NY bash in April...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
>>BTW, I don't think your snide "mere pilots, not lawyers" remark will cut much ice on this forum. My respect for, and assistance to, pilots is well-known to regulars on Pprune.<<
And likewise, I assure you I won't let your pedantic observations on my posts affect my opinion of lawyers one bit <g>.
Did you see the links and cites I posted in response to your queries about how things work in America?
And likewise, I assure you I won't let your pedantic observations on my posts affect my opinion of lawyers one bit <g>.
Did you see the links and cites I posted in response to your queries about how things work in America?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wino
I don't know anything about pre-trial defence spin in the OJ case, but the defence tactics during the trial were breath-taking to someone used to our system. Not the American system's finest hour, perhaps.
Your assessment of the Woodward case is more generous than mine. I felt more sympathy for the way the poor parents were pilloried.
I'm off-line now for Christmas. Have a good one!
Airbubba
Yes, I did. Thank you.
I don't know anything about pre-trial defence spin in the OJ case, but the defence tactics during the trial were breath-taking to someone used to our system. Not the American system's finest hour, perhaps.
Your assessment of the Woodward case is more generous than mine. I felt more sympathy for the way the poor parents were pilloried.
I'm off-line now for Christmas. Have a good one!
Airbubba
Yes, I did. Thank you.
Well we can all rest easy................Todays Daily Express (a tabloid rag in the UK) has a picture of the aircraft the pilot was about to fly and it was not a 747 at all!!!!!!
It was a 737 of Virgin Blue!!!!!
Don't you just love the way the press get their story so factually correct in every detail! I hope Virgin Blue sue them to hell and back for defamation of the company name.
I cannot add anything else to this thread as it seems to be repeating the same suppositions time and time again.
Do Judges have to be lay off the booze beore trying people?
It was a 737 of Virgin Blue!!!!!
Don't you just love the way the press get their story so factually correct in every detail! I hope Virgin Blue sue them to hell and back for defamation of the company name.
I cannot add anything else to this thread as it seems to be repeating the same suppositions time and time again.
Do Judges have to be lay off the booze beore trying people?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: newark
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Final and Only Comment
Having read 12 pages of support, denials, excuses etc...all I have to say is this.
IF the pilot did what he is accused of doing, he has lost his career and livelyhood which is a far greater punishment than any court could ever hand down.
IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent.
Newarksmells
IF the pilot did what he is accused of doing, he has lost his career and livelyhood which is a far greater punishment than any court could ever hand down.
IF he didn't do anything to merit this arrest, I hope he will be found innocent and sue the a*s off the US Government. You just can't pick somebody's life up and throw it in the toilet which is what the TSA are doing IF he is innocent.
Newarksmells
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newarksmells,
I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???
Perhaps, while you are there, you can provide justification for sueing anyone who tells the Police anything, like 'I saw Fred Smith rob that person', 'John Brown is selling drugs', or 'I saw ********* hide a knife in his sock before he went off to catch a flight'. Because like it or not, it is exactly the same thing!
Interesting idea if you take your point isn't it. Don't tell the Police if you think someone is committing an offence. Remember one day you may be the victim of crime, how would you feel if someone may have information about who was guilty and said nothing, in case they got sued.
The evidence against this pilot is being provided by himself. In the shape of a blood or urine test. No one else. On the result of that evidence or some fault in proccedure the court will decide.
On the other hand you could try and be sensible the guard, whatever you think of him or who he works for has EVERY right to call in the Police.
I thought this side of it had finished now...go on then explain why it is that the Security man has done something wrong...???
Perhaps, while you are there, you can provide justification for sueing anyone who tells the Police anything, like 'I saw Fred Smith rob that person', 'John Brown is selling drugs', or 'I saw ********* hide a knife in his sock before he went off to catch a flight'. Because like it or not, it is exactly the same thing!
Interesting idea if you take your point isn't it. Don't tell the Police if you think someone is committing an offence. Remember one day you may be the victim of crime, how would you feel if someone may have information about who was guilty and said nothing, in case they got sued.
The evidence against this pilot is being provided by himself. In the shape of a blood or urine test. No one else. On the result of that evidence or some fault in proccedure the court will decide.
On the other hand you could try and be sensible the guard, whatever you think of him or who he works for has EVERY right to call in the Police.
Last edited by bjcc; 25th Dec 2003 at 10:00.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 38N
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Ratchet
One problem inherent in cases of this sort is the potential for somewhat mindless escalation of the seriousness of a situation by individuals who are ill-qualified, ill-informed, tired, angry, confused or frightened by the circumstances of the moment.
In the aviation version of this, the outcome that people read about is an airplane on a mountainside or wedged in a marsh.
The law-enforcement version is quite similar, but it appears as a case which begins with very odd and sketchy initial circumstances. Each escalation of authority in the decision proocess ratchets the concept from complaint to suspicion to matter to charge to proceeding. The ranks of officialdom close up behind the process makers and no hint of any error is likely to emerge - except on the bloody end of discovery and maybe in the appeals process.
The first escalation in the instant case now seems complete and the official players are evidently solidified into very hard positions. Whether a mindless escalation has occurred here - or not - remains to be determined by the rough grinding of the legal machinery. All too often, in the U.S. at least, the hamburger that comes out of legal process no longer resembles in any way the "facts" that went in. This is amplified by a pronounced tendency to overcharge individuals in every manner possible so as to bludgeon them into early confession... ahead of fact-finding. Any resemblance of U.S. style "plea-bargaining" to the Spanish Inquisition is purely chimerical, of course. Leakage to the press of incriminating allegations and details that undermine the defendant's ability to defend himselt is icing on the case.... er.. cake.
It all starts with an unexpected situation arriving in the lap of someone who is marginally prepared to handle it. A necessary second ingredient is some inexorable outside pressure that demands quick action, rather than more deliberate or thoughtful study and problem-solving.
In an aircraft, there are ample time pressures, even when something important is not broken or failing. In police work, the pace can sometimes be more leisurely, except in the presence of reporters, crowds of bystanders, schedules that are about to change the circumstances, strange accents, bad vibes, etc.
With a marginally competent (at the moment) decisionmaker and a swift need to do SOMETHING, the conservative and (one might say) reasonable choice is to follow procedures with the utmost care and diligence. In an airplane this usually means "read the book" or "gawk the efis" to determine the data and SOPs that might apply. In law enforcement it tends to mean: "assume the charges and use that justification to call in a superior (who will then inherit responsibility for the actual decision)."
After a few iterations of either approach, all the opportunity for a graceful, fact-oriented, and de-escalated resolution of the problem is gone in the wind.
The consequenses then ensue.
It's called "decision by default".
One problem inherent in cases of this sort is the potential for somewhat mindless escalation of the seriousness of a situation by individuals who are ill-qualified, ill-informed, tired, angry, confused or frightened by the circumstances of the moment.
In the aviation version of this, the outcome that people read about is an airplane on a mountainside or wedged in a marsh.
The law-enforcement version is quite similar, but it appears as a case which begins with very odd and sketchy initial circumstances. Each escalation of authority in the decision proocess ratchets the concept from complaint to suspicion to matter to charge to proceeding. The ranks of officialdom close up behind the process makers and no hint of any error is likely to emerge - except on the bloody end of discovery and maybe in the appeals process.
The first escalation in the instant case now seems complete and the official players are evidently solidified into very hard positions. Whether a mindless escalation has occurred here - or not - remains to be determined by the rough grinding of the legal machinery. All too often, in the U.S. at least, the hamburger that comes out of legal process no longer resembles in any way the "facts" that went in. This is amplified by a pronounced tendency to overcharge individuals in every manner possible so as to bludgeon them into early confession... ahead of fact-finding. Any resemblance of U.S. style "plea-bargaining" to the Spanish Inquisition is purely chimerical, of course. Leakage to the press of incriminating allegations and details that undermine the defendant's ability to defend himselt is icing on the case.... er.. cake.
It all starts with an unexpected situation arriving in the lap of someone who is marginally prepared to handle it. A necessary second ingredient is some inexorable outside pressure that demands quick action, rather than more deliberate or thoughtful study and problem-solving.
In an aircraft, there are ample time pressures, even when something important is not broken or failing. In police work, the pace can sometimes be more leisurely, except in the presence of reporters, crowds of bystanders, schedules that are about to change the circumstances, strange accents, bad vibes, etc.
With a marginally competent (at the moment) decisionmaker and a swift need to do SOMETHING, the conservative and (one might say) reasonable choice is to follow procedures with the utmost care and diligence. In an airplane this usually means "read the book" or "gawk the efis" to determine the data and SOPs that might apply. In law enforcement it tends to mean: "assume the charges and use that justification to call in a superior (who will then inherit responsibility for the actual decision)."
After a few iterations of either approach, all the opportunity for a graceful, fact-oriented, and de-escalated resolution of the problem is gone in the wind.
The consequenses then ensue.
It's called "decision by default".