American Airlines Pilot Arrested at Manchester (NOT GUILTY)
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Lawyer
geraintw
Why must they?
Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?
People in every other walk of life do.
It would be a very simple task.
In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably.
All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.
FL
Why must they?
Are you suggesting policemen never behave unreasonably?
People in every other walk of life do.
It would be a very simple task.
In that context, the burden would be on the side complaining/suing to prove that the constables acted unreasonably, not for them to prove that they acted reasonably.
All the constables would have to do is say that, when they spoke to the pilots, they thought they could smell alcohol and/or formed the view from their demeanour that they had been drinking alcohol and/or were under the influence of alcohol.
FL
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
You say you've seen people convicted in court who you know to be innocent.
Are you referring to members of the general public, people you've arrested, or police officers?
And from the flip side, I presume you've also seen people who you know to be guilty to be acquitted.
But if you know people are innocent - then why stand back and watch them be convicted? Surely if you know someone is innocent because you have evidence of that, then that evidence should be admitted.
Or would these be situations in which the evidence you had wasn't admissible ?
You say you've seen people convicted in court who you know to be innocent.
Are you referring to members of the general public, people you've arrested, or police officers?
And from the flip side, I presume you've also seen people who you know to be guilty to be acquitted.
But if you know people are innocent - then why stand back and watch them be convicted? Surely if you know someone is innocent because you have evidence of that, then that evidence should be admitted.
Or would these be situations in which the evidence you had wasn't admissible ?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D SQDRN 97th IOTC
I thought you were a Barrister???
I mean members of the public. If I had meant Police Officers, I would have said so.
Why stand back? Did I say I did? Or is that an assumption?
The cases I mention, 3 that I can recall where were I had no direct evidence of the offence, my part being that of arresting officer and of interview only.
There were witnesses in all 3 cases, who would not, or could not give evidence for their own reasons. For example, one was having an affair with someone, and witnessed the offence after a quick shag on clapham common. She would not provide a statement for what she saw, refused to give her details and certainly would not attend court, in case her husbund found out.
The evidence of the witness/victim was suffiecent to support a charge, and could not be contradicted by anyone else. So there were no options other than to proceed.
So what did I do? I spoke to the CPS, who shrugged their shoulders. I then peed off the CPS by telling the defence solicitor, but as what the witrness said was hearsay, it could not be used. Apart from that, I made as much play I could of how reasonable the accused was, and the fumed as he was convicted.
Suprising as it may be to some, the Public are not adversed to lying.....Be that to the papers, the Police or the Courts.
I thought you were a Barrister???
I mean members of the public. If I had meant Police Officers, I would have said so.
Why stand back? Did I say I did? Or is that an assumption?
The cases I mention, 3 that I can recall where were I had no direct evidence of the offence, my part being that of arresting officer and of interview only.
There were witnesses in all 3 cases, who would not, or could not give evidence for their own reasons. For example, one was having an affair with someone, and witnessed the offence after a quick shag on clapham common. She would not provide a statement for what she saw, refused to give her details and certainly would not attend court, in case her husbund found out.
The evidence of the witness/victim was suffiecent to support a charge, and could not be contradicted by anyone else. So there were no options other than to proceed.
So what did I do? I spoke to the CPS, who shrugged their shoulders. I then peed off the CPS by telling the defence solicitor, but as what the witrness said was hearsay, it could not be used. Apart from that, I made as much play I could of how reasonable the accused was, and the fumed as he was convicted.
Suprising as it may be to some, the Public are not adversed to lying.....Be that to the papers, the Police or the Courts.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: west sussex
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bjcc
With respect, your grammar and use of english is just so poor that when you say:
"I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent" but don't say what the "some" refers to, then who am I supposed to think the "some" refers to? You refer to police officers in the preceeding sentence, and also in the preceeding 2 paragraphs. The main thrust of your posting at 08:23 was in connection with policemen being "bent". It was possible that you meant police officers being convicted - that's why I asked.
Being a barrister does not make me a magician. At times, I am simply unable to follow you.
With respect, your grammar and use of english is just so poor that when you say:
"I have been to court and seen convicted some who I know damm well are innocent" but don't say what the "some" refers to, then who am I supposed to think the "some" refers to? You refer to police officers in the preceeding sentence, and also in the preceeding 2 paragraphs. The main thrust of your posting at 08:23 was in connection with policemen being "bent". It was possible that you meant police officers being convicted - that's why I asked.
Being a barrister does not make me a magician. At times, I am simply unable to follow you.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
geraintw
RH makes a fair point. I’ll say no more.
bjcc
Your experience is as a policeman. ie the prosecution side. I prosecute and defend, roughly 50/50. We’ll never agree upon which experience is more likely to enable us to be objective.
You say you keep an open mind in these discussions. I only hope, as someone who prosecutes and defends people, that it was even more open when you were a policeman.
Let’s just agree to differ rather than divert the thread further.
FL
RH makes a fair point. I’ll say no more.
bjcc
Your experience is as a policeman. ie the prosecution side. I prosecute and defend, roughly 50/50. We’ll never agree upon which experience is more likely to enable us to be objective.
You say you keep an open mind in these discussions. I only hope, as someone who prosecutes and defends people, that it was even more open when you were a policeman.
Let’s just agree to differ rather than divert the thread further.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Feb 2006 at 20:04.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: US
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ZQA297/30
Where and when was the court appearance scheduled to be, and what is the current status?
We've got our rumors, but nobody really knows. Anybody in the MAN area want to call the MAN police and inquire about the charges?
I'm gonna guess that they've been dropped.
AN offense had NOT been committed until flight duties--primary or ancillary--have been accomplished. The 2003 Transport Law clearly says this.
As he was being arrested, IF he told them he was coming to the airport to call in sick, then maybe it just took the police & prosecutors about 4 days to figure that out, and that a successful prosecution of the charges could not occur.
kc135777
Sims Fly Virtually
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Used to be 3rd Sand Dune from the Left - But now I'm somewhere else somewhere else.
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I DO know that the FO charged, DH'd to ORD on 2/15
7 pages of insults and allegations that coppers are, or are not, bent; that barristers do, or don't, know what they are talking about; quoting UK Law, FAR, AA regs. (I must have nothing to do but read them
)I don't think that phoning MAN cop-shop is going to get any answers
I'm just very interested in the outcome, hope for the sake of the pilot and the flying community's reputation that the allegations were unfounded, whether justifiable or not.
Also hoping for the sake of the 2 MAN cops that they don't get on a holiday flight to ORD anytime soon - Even if their actions were fully justified, I can imagine the amount of hot coffee spilled in their laps! Stick to Majorca for the next couple of years guys
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: london/UK
Posts: 499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KC135777
To answer some of your points.
Phoning MAN police station probably wont get an answer. UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons. They may issue a press release if/when he is either charged or it is decided no further action is being taken. But thats only MAY, not will.
The time taken.
If, a blood or urine test has been taken, it has to be sent off to be anaylised. When that happens, usually, the arrested person is released on bail. The time for road traffic act offences where I was, was 6 weeks. That is not the time it takes for the Police specimin to be anaylised, but is based on how long an independent test can take.
That independent test, if conducted, is the responsibility of the arrested person, and is based on a portion of the sample he provided to police, and offered to them for that purpose.
If the Police test comes back as under the limit, the person is sent a letter saying don't worry about coming back to the police station. No further action is being taken.
If it is over the prescribed limit, then they return to the Police station on the date bailed to and are charged.
Thats why at the very begining of this I expressed suprise at the AA statement regarding him appearing in Court on the following Monday.
Please note that the above is in respect of being over the prescribed limit, although...
To complicate matter, there is another offence of being unfit through drink or drugs. Assuming this incident revolves round a suspiction of alcohol, lets ignore the drugs side for now. IF thats the offence he was arrested for, then a blood/urine test may not be nessesery. The evidence of a doctor can be used instead. However, it would not be unusal for a blood/urine test to be taken and anaylised as well, in which case the delays between arrest and charge would be as above.
The third possibility, is as you touched on, ie, it's being thought about. If he has put foreward at some point what you said regarding duty time, then the files could have been completed and sent to the Crown Proescution Service for advice. In which case, they will consider the evidence and decided how, or whether to proceed. Of course any blood/unrine test would still have been taken and sent off.
In short, there is no real inference that can be drawn from the silence, or time taken.
To answer some of your points.
Phoning MAN police station probably wont get an answer. UK Police don't give out info to the public in respect of arrested persons. They may issue a press release if/when he is either charged or it is decided no further action is being taken. But thats only MAY, not will.
The time taken.
If, a blood or urine test has been taken, it has to be sent off to be anaylised. When that happens, usually, the arrested person is released on bail. The time for road traffic act offences where I was, was 6 weeks. That is not the time it takes for the Police specimin to be anaylised, but is based on how long an independent test can take.
That independent test, if conducted, is the responsibility of the arrested person, and is based on a portion of the sample he provided to police, and offered to them for that purpose.
If the Police test comes back as under the limit, the person is sent a letter saying don't worry about coming back to the police station. No further action is being taken.
If it is over the prescribed limit, then they return to the Police station on the date bailed to and are charged.
Thats why at the very begining of this I expressed suprise at the AA statement regarding him appearing in Court on the following Monday.
Please note that the above is in respect of being over the prescribed limit, although...
To complicate matter, there is another offence of being unfit through drink or drugs. Assuming this incident revolves round a suspiction of alcohol, lets ignore the drugs side for now. IF thats the offence he was arrested for, then a blood/urine test may not be nessesery. The evidence of a doctor can be used instead. However, it would not be unusal for a blood/urine test to be taken and anaylised as well, in which case the delays between arrest and charge would be as above.
The third possibility, is as you touched on, ie, it's being thought about. If he has put foreward at some point what you said regarding duty time, then the files could have been completed and sent to the Crown Proescution Service for advice. In which case, they will consider the evidence and decided how, or whether to proceed. Of course any blood/unrine test would still have been taken and sent off.
In short, there is no real inference that can be drawn from the silence, or time taken.
I just love pprune. I mean the same old people wheel out the same old prejudices and biases. The topic takes on a life of its own (often completely unrelated to the topic in hand). Slagging matches start. The Spotters get their bit in. Oh its a wonderful life. Some of you need to get out more.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Algy
Bailed until 14 March. Don't know conditions.
The press officer said that the reported bail date of 14th February was incorrect, the pilot is bailed until the 14th March.
I asked whether the pilot had to remain in Britain, or whether he was allowed to return to America temporarily. The press officer said that he did not know the conditions of bail.
Oh well. Investigative journalism isn't for me - I won't give up the day job!
Last edited by Dollond; 17th Feb 2006 at 17:46.
Originally Posted by Kalium Chloride
Funny how people immediately jump to the defence of the AA pilot before knowing any of the facts, but were prepared to judge and lambast 'Dispatches' before seeing the programme. One rule for some, another rule for others. 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ExSimGuy
The confusion isn't surprising, but nobody's criticised the police in this AA pilot incident.
The "2 MAN cops" were in one of the previous Manchester incidents.
They breathalysed both the pilots after a pax complained about the landing.
It may seem unbelievable, but it did happen.
If you didn't read about it at the time, the links are worth following.
Original thread here: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
(It was both pilots, not one.)
Press report here: Manchester Evening News online
(Includes a statement issued by Manchester police.)
Comments posted by members of public: Manchester Online 'Feedback'
The incident didn't exactly enhance the reputation of Manchester police,
and may explain the suspicion and negative reaction when an incident at Manchester is reported.
H.
The confusion isn't surprising, but nobody's criticised the police in this AA pilot incident.
The "2 MAN cops" were in one of the previous Manchester incidents.
They breathalysed both the pilots after a pax complained about the landing.
It may seem unbelievable, but it did happen.
If you didn't read about it at the time, the links are worth following.
Original thread here: UK pilot breathalysed after go arounds
(It was both pilots, not one.)
Press report here: Manchester Evening News online
(Includes a statement issued by Manchester police.)
Comments posted by members of public: Manchester Online 'Feedback'
The incident didn't exactly enhance the reputation of Manchester police,
and may explain the suspicion and negative reaction when an incident at Manchester is reported.
H.
Last edited by Heliport; 18th Feb 2006 at 08:32.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Dudley (UK)
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To HELIPORT
My apologies if you were upset by my previous entry. It was in no way intended to be "silly, inaccurate and provocative". However, when certain contributors make statements such as:
"That's why I always have a particularly pungent meal the night before my first day of shift"
or
"Then you appear to drink too much/too late in front of a jealous hotel employee..."
it does raise suspicions that there are a few who may not be in a fit state to enter the flight deck on the following day.
My entry was aimed at totally condemning those that "Drink and Fly" and to support the police in weeding them out. As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them.
Surely, it is references to security staff as "Chimps" that are "silly, inaccurate and provocative" and have no place on this forum.
I wasn't upset in the slightest, just trying to stop the thread going off on even more of a tangent. The content and tone of your previous post was very different from this one.
"As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them."
People's opinions clearly differ about whether police officers actions should be supported regardless of what they do or how they do it. You might want to read about a previous incident at Manchester. (Links in my post immediately above.) Some might think the most damaging consequences of an incident like that is the damage it can do to the reputation of the police at that airport or even generally.
Nobody's condoned pilots who "Drink and Fly" or said those who do shouldn't be weeded out.
Heliport
"That's why I always have a particularly pungent meal the night before my first day of shift"
or
"Then you appear to drink too much/too late in front of a jealous hotel employee..."
it does raise suspicions that there are a few who may not be in a fit state to enter the flight deck on the following day.
My entry was aimed at totally condemning those that "Drink and Fly" and to support the police in weeding them out. As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them.
Surely, it is references to security staff as "Chimps" that are "silly, inaccurate and provocative" and have no place on this forum.
I wasn't upset in the slightest, just trying to stop the thread going off on even more of a tangent. The content and tone of your previous post was very different from this one.
"As professional flight crew, we should be supporting the police instead of knocking them."
People's opinions clearly differ about whether police officers actions should be supported regardless of what they do or how they do it. You might want to read about a previous incident at Manchester. (Links in my post immediately above.) Some might think the most damaging consequences of an incident like that is the damage it can do to the reputation of the police at that airport or even generally.
Nobody's condoned pilots who "Drink and Fly" or said those who do shouldn't be weeded out.
Heliport
Last edited by Heliport; 18th Feb 2006 at 11:18.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA Pilot Arrested @ MAN
If he was wearing a uniform, does that have anything to do with it?
Any airline pilot in uniform represents our profession, their company, and the industry, as a whole. If that fellow was, in fact, smelling of booze, he should be jerked off the a/c, tested for alcohol, and dealt with accordingly. HOWEVER, if he was, in fact, NOT smelling of booze, then someone who reported him as such, should be sacked and hung out to dry.
Any airline pilot in uniform represents our profession, their company, and the industry, as a whole. If that fellow was, in fact, smelling of booze, he should be jerked off the a/c, tested for alcohol, and dealt with accordingly. HOWEVER, if he was, in fact, NOT smelling of booze, then someone who reported him as such, should be sacked and hung out to dry.