Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Drunken ravers cross LTN’s runway

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Drunken ravers cross LTN’s runway

Old 13th Aug 2001, 16:42
  #21 (permalink)  
Posts: n/a

So what, they were having a good time and nobody got hurt. No harm, no foul..
Old 13th Aug 2001, 19:20
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: southern england
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Having done a little digging at lunchtime, according to the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990 section 21C.

(1) A person shall not—
(a) go, with or without a vehicle, onto any part of a restricted zone of— (i) an aerodrome, ...............except with the permission of the manager of the aerodrome..............or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority, and in accordance with any conditions subject to which that permission is for the time being granted, or
(b) remain on any part of such a restricted zone after being requested to leave by the manager of the aerodrome............ or a person acting on behalf of that manager or authority.

(2) Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply unless it is proved that, at the material time, notices stating that the area concerned was a restricted zone were posted so as to be readily seen and read by persons entering the restricted zone.

(3) A person who contravenes subsection (1) above without lawful authority or reasonable excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale."

Assuming that the runway and perimeter is "restricted", and providing that there were notices to this effect along the fence line, that would appear to indicate that any person in violation can be arrested.

newswatcher is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2001, 20:29
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Actually, Newswatcher, I seem to recall from my limited exposure to criminal law (limited to a term of it at University) that a summary offence is one for which you may be summonsed to court, not arrested. An indictable offence would lead to an arrest.

[dons flak jacket and retreats to a dark corner whilst he waits for a criminal lawyer to tell him he's got it completely cockeyed...]
Lawyerboy is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2001, 20:40
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Buckinghamshire
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

I am not a lawyer, but I am pretty sure that a summary offence is one that can only be heard by magistrates, and an indictable offence is one for the Crown Court. There is a big group of either-way offences in the middle which might be heard in either court, depending on the circumstances.

There is, however, a difference between an arrestable offence and a non arrestable one. Police Officers have to be very au fait with that one, and it is as well for the rest of us to be dead careful before trying a Citizens' Arrest. Get it wrong, and it can be expensive.
JPJ is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2001, 21:51
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 262
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts


I'm not a lawyer - so please forgive me if I'm butting in on your turf - but I think JPJ may be correct.

The important difference is between Arrestable and Non-Arrestable offences - with an Arrestable offence being either defined as such in the Statute that creates the offence, or any offence carrying a period of imprisonment of, I think, 5 years or more.

Many defendants who will be tried in a Magistrates Court will have been arrested by the Police and brought to Court that way.

For example, in the UK "Drink Driving" is a summary only offence, and can only be tried in a Magistrates Court, but it is an offence for which one is arrested - after failing or refusing the roadside screening test.

As posted above, the likely penalties for a Police Officer who gets it wrong would seem to act as a considerable dis-incentive to swift and robust law enforcement!

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Bellerophon ]
Bellerophon is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2001, 21:59
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

As I said, I always stand to be corrected . As a matter of interest, I also seem to recall (and hopefully my recollection will be a little better this time) that matters are made considerably more complicated by the fact that Joe Public may only safely effect a citizen's arrest where an offence has actually been committed by the person that one is trying to arrest. Only the police may arrest someone on suspicion of having carried out an arrestable offence. Another reason that store detectives are generally a cautious lot.
Lawyerboy is offline  
Old 13th Aug 2001, 23:26
  #27 (permalink)  

Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Luton Beds UK
Posts: 907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Well as a matter of fact, Interference with Public Transport IS a criminal offence - internationally.

This is the law under which louts on board were usually nabbed before the newer Air Rage laws started to come into effect.

The Sabena employees who held back a Swissair A-320 could also have been prosecuted under this law.

In my experience the local police are very loath to come to the assistance of Luton aircraft - go elsewhere if you want intervention from that source.
Few Cloudy is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.