Arsonist on Sharm el-Sheikh flight has sentence doubled
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arsonist on Sharm el-Sheikh flight has sentence doubled
Intentional arson or being a culpable idiot who committed a criminal offence? If the former, I'd hang him; if the latter then I'd have thought the initial sentence sufficient.
(Must be getting soft in my old age)
(Must be getting soft in my old age)
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even a smoking drunk would put the butt end into the lav pan. He chose to put it alight into the paper bin and I guess he was making some statement to cabin crew who told him not to smoke, hoping to cause a disturbance. He succeeded and he confessed to arson at court.
Drunks on aircraft are a menace to everyone, and it's a crime to be drunk on an aircraft.
Drunks on aircraft are a menace to everyone, and it's a crime to be drunk on an aircraft.
Psychophysiological entity
Excellent news , Might concentrate peoples minds somewhat.
Deterrent sentencing is punishing people for crimes that have not yet been committed. A means of controlling the masses and an abhorrence in my opinion.
You have to look at the precise series of events, and exactly what an average person is presented with in the lavatory. Then assume people will become intoxicated if you serve them alcohol - especially if it's known that they can purchase it just prior to the flight.
This is the real world. This man's life was already
'd up, and he is typical of a significant proportion of men of his age in the so-called free world. The intoxication is the issue, everything else after that is human psychology at its saddest. Gasping for a fag. How many millions suffer that addiction? Intoxication is liberating the mind from responsible thinking. Again, it's the alcohol, not the mindset of a middle-aged family man who when sober would no doubt do anything to protect his children from danger. Did he really set out to start a fire? They'd have us believe he did.
Now look at what such a perpetrator is faced with when he decides the law isn't for him: a tiny room with a plethora of small openings, some containing paper, some just black voids. His cigarette, we know in our sober minds, is a very significant danger, but to him it's just one of thousands he's disposed of, presumably without incident. The probability is that he made a terrible mistake in the place he disposes of it but it sounds for all the world as though he was determined to start a fire and kill everyone on board - after all, we're repeatedly reminded how high we are and clearly that great altitude makes it a much more serious crime. Well, clearly so in the minds of the prosecution.
The Americans remind passengers every flight that it is a Federal Crime to smoke in the lavatory. That wording lends weight to the warning but even that is not really enough. There should be an immediate alarm inside and outside the loo. Passengers should be made aware of that detection system and the seriousness of the crime - should they commit it. Right now, folk worldwide let preflight safety briefings wash over them, and this very important warning is just part of the noise.
The willingness of crews to let people talk all through their briefing is unacceptable.
This man was it seems, down on his luck. He drinks, possibly too much to be legal to board, if the law were to be applied to the letter. He makes an almost juvenile decision to disobey the weakly presented rules and then mindlessly disposes of the cigarette in the wrong place.
The airline, the entire industry, should be held accountable for his ability to bring down an airliner with an addiction that's known about worldwide. Not just known about, but understood in minute detail.
That aircraft has a bewildering mass of devices to protect it and its contents from all manner of dangers. How can this utterly simplistic vulnerability be allowed to continue for decades?
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoerikwaggo
Age: 88
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance of the law.......
The mental element here, which must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, is the intention to smoke where it is an offence to do so. That he was warned not to smoke makes it easier to prove this.
As a matter of evidence, I'd think that it is reasonable to conclude that by going into the toilet to smoke he probably knew this. If he had given evidence in defence, he would probably have been asked in cross examination why he went to the toilet to smoke and did not light up at his seat.
I find myself hard hearted. In my earlier life, before I retired and returned to Mzantsi, I was a lecturer in the Law Faculty of an English university teaching final year Law students who were taking the Criminology option. A local magistrates' clerk who was responsible for the training programmes for local Benches used to run sentencing exercises, based on real cases, for the Penology segment of the course. The material he used was Court of Appeal judgments. When the students expressed shock at a sentence, he used to say grimly, "He sentenced himself!"
The argument isn't about whether he was innocent, but about what exactly he was guilty of (and what would therefore be a proportionate sentence).
Basil's post above sums it up well.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the rationale for allowing lighters (and I think safety matches) to be carried by passengers on board an aircraft when they are not allowed to be used and can be bought cheaply on arrival?
LH flight MNL-FRA, business class, about 15 years ago.
Gentleman leaving lavatory smelling of cigarette smoke. My business in lavatory done I opened dust bin to discard towel. Paper smouldering due cigarette butt. Doused it with water, informed CC, pointed out person responsible. Think he had a stern talking to, but not much more.
Times change.
Gentleman leaving lavatory smelling of cigarette smoke. My business in lavatory done I opened dust bin to discard towel. Paper smouldering due cigarette butt. Doused it with water, informed CC, pointed out person responsible. Think he had a stern talking to, but not much more.
Times change.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Japan they allow them on domestic flights, limited to one lighter I believe, but not internationally.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: South East
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes it was everyone else's fault that he did what he did. Put the Captain and crew in prison, and all the ground staff, bar workers,
alcohol factory workers, and his fellow passengers.
alcohol factory workers, and his fellow passengers.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: south UK
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Psychophysiological entity
Mr Tojo, I accept your mild sarcasm as your argument, but at no stage did I criticise the flight-deck crew. It's the #1's/Purser's job to run a tight ship - a lot easier in my day, I would have to agree.
Despite the reply, the people selling alcohol to, often imminently boarding passengers certainly have a moral duty to act like a responsible landlord, but that's wishful thinking. In the chaos of modern air travel it's a wonder there's not more drink-related problems. The occasional scrap is bad enough but drink fuelled, deep-routed anger could lead to a major 'I hate the world/life/people' type of rage. To have the aircraft so vulnerable to a psychotic episode is bewildering in this technological age.
It is obvious that certain people must be very aware of this vulnerability.
As for the OP's point. My opinion is, the original sentence was already on the harsh side - if there was no intent. The increase is uncomfortably like American sentencing where more and more prisons are built - because with a system like that, they can afford to.
Despite the reply, the people selling alcohol to, often imminently boarding passengers certainly have a moral duty to act like a responsible landlord, but that's wishful thinking. In the chaos of modern air travel it's a wonder there's not more drink-related problems. The occasional scrap is bad enough but drink fuelled, deep-routed anger could lead to a major 'I hate the world/life/people' type of rage. To have the aircraft so vulnerable to a psychotic episode is bewildering in this technological age.
It is obvious that certain people must be very aware of this vulnerability.
As for the OP's point. My opinion is, the original sentence was already on the harsh side - if there was no intent. The increase is uncomfortably like American sentencing where more and more prisons are built - because with a system like that, they can afford to.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoerikwaggo
Age: 88
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the other hand, I also have made a misleading error and must concede this to DaveReidUK.
All that one has is the BBC news report, and it appears that the charge was brought under the Criminal Damage Act. The Crown Prosecution Service is enjoined to charge as arson an alleged offence against sec. 1 -- see Criminal Damage: Legal Guidance: The Crown Prosecution Service
Section 1(2) of the Act makes it an offence to destroy or damage property intending thereby to endanger the life of another, or being reckless as to whether the life of another would thereby be endangered (Archbold 23-13).
If the damage is committed by fire, the offence is charged as arson with intent or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered
If the damage is committed by fire, the offence is charged as arson with intent or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered
Stupidly, I did not read the BBC report. Press reports are notoriously unreliable, and I assumed that he was charged with at least two other offences -- smoking where this was prohibited, and with disobeying the lawful orders of the crew. I don't have ready access to the law (I suspect the ANO) down in Hoerikwaggo and so I can't give references, but I understand that these are two offences which aircrew are well aware of.
I wish that we could see the charge sheet. I suspect that these other offences will also appear on it.
The fact that there was an actual fire seems to be the reason why the charge of arson was brought. If there had been no fire, then the other two charges would still have been proper. He may have been convicted of them also, but this was not mentioned in the news report.
As for the sentence, I remain hardhearted and uncontrite. If the other charges were also brought, they must have aggravated the matter as they constitute the context for the arson. I challenge any aircrew to state that they would wish that the matter were otherwise and would take a more lenient view!
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent news. I am told that the incident in question was a little more complex.. unfortunately what I was told is hearsay, hence publishing here would be inappropriate. Sorry
I am fully aware of what occurred on this flight and the original sentence was unduly lenient. I am pleased that he will now serve a more appropriate term for his actions, and if I had been the judge I would have probably doubled it to eighteen years.