T8191

Assuming, obviously, that there is sufficient evidence to charge the individual(s), I wonder what mitigation the Courts could consider to prveent them imposing the maximum 5-year prisons sentence?

This was premeditated, persistent and knowingly impacting on aviation safety and the general Public. What more would be needed to justify the maximum sentence available? Any other effects, such as actual impact with an aircraft and/or death/injury/damage could be handled under alternative legislation.

simons1

Sign of the times that the informant tipped off a newspaper not the police....

Hopefully this will mean things can get back to normal and everyone wanting to get away can do so.

corporate-wage-slave

Generally I think it's seriousness of the crime, culpability, harm plus aggravating factors (e.g. repeat offence) on one side of the scale; versus mitigation and a potential guilty plea on the other side. Mitigation could include remorse, limited understanding, previous good character, mental disorder, taking steps to address offending behaviour. An early guilty plea can take one third off a sentence, falling to 10% if admission of guilt is at a late stage.

There are other charges that the CPS can look at, apart from the 2018 amendment to the Air Navigation Order than you seem to be referencing.

LimitingFactor

I don't think this has been reported in this thread yet, but some news sources are reporting that this system is the one now deployed at Gatwick:

https://www.janes.com/article/82347/...e-c-uas-system

The United Kingdom has procured the Israeli-developed Drone Dome counter-unmanned aircraft system (C-UAS), manufacturer Rafael confirmed to Jane’s on 13 August.

The Drone Dome system is comprised of three key elements. In terms of the kill-effecter, the United Kingdom has opted for jamming rather than a laser. (IHS Markit/Gareth Jennings)

The selection of the Drone Dome comes eight months after it was demonstrated to the UK government in January. According to Rafael, the United Kingdom is to receive the radar detection, electro-optical (EO) identification and communication jamming elements of the system, but not the hard-kill laser.

No details pertaining to delivery timelines or contract values were disclosed.

The Drone Dome is described by Rafael as an “end-to-end system designed to provide effective airspace defence against hostile drones used by terrorists to perform aerial attacks, collect intelligence, and other intimidating activities”.

Detection is provided by a combination of a RADA Innovative Defense Electronics RPS-42 pMHR S-band multimission 90° hemispheric radar (four radars to give full 360° coverage), the Controp MEOS electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) surveillance suite, and the NetSense Wideband detection sensor developed by Netline; command-and-control is provided by a command console; and the effector can be the Lite Beam laser, the C-Guard RD jammer, or even a high-pressured water gun depending on the threat.

As noted by RADA, the RPS-42 has three operating modes: track while search, target revisit, and single target tracking. The radar usually has a detection range of about 50 km for a target the size of a transport aircraft, but for the class of target that it is looking for in its Drone Dome application the radar would typically provide a detection range of between 3.5 km and 10 km. As well as providing detection, the RPS-42 also offers the option for a ‘soft-kill’ of the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) when integrated with the RF jammer. The system uses a gallium nitride solid-state active electronically scanned array antenna, and being relatively small and light is suitable for static and vehicle-based applications.

Steve_ZA

The Ł10000 reward offered by said newspaper may have influenced this decision somewhat, although there is a requirement in their Tc & Cs that the police need to be informed first.

bisonrav

The penalty seems to be life imprisonment, see:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...-at-aerodromes

(1)It is an offence for any person by means of any device, substance or weapon intentionally to commit at an aerodrome serving international civil aviation any act of violence which—(a)causes or is likely to cause death or serious personal injury, and(b)endangers or is likely to endanger the safe operation of the aerodrome or the safety of persons at the aerodrome.

(5)A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

tinkicker

kanderson1965

bisonrav

There's a good discussion of this on pprune, and one of the posters there also notes that the remit of terrorism legislation is fairly wide and can be invoked if there is any ideological motivation, which seems quite likely here. Fairly sure that this isn't going to end up with a minor slap on the wrist anyway.

tinkicker

Actually this was the bit I was thinking of:
Slightly depends on the definition of "device" which I'm trying to find at the moment.

argonath

You can be certain that due to the severity et al that those in the CPS/Government and affected organisations/persons will want severe penalties to be result to deter any other potential offenders.

T8191

Excellent! Thanks, folks ... on iPad abroad so not best placed to research the Book Throwing options available!

T8191

The arrested persons are male (47) and female (54) from Crawley.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-46657505

Possibly therefore part of the Gatwick protester community?

LGWClosedAgain

I was going to write a fairly long list of examples that I expect would be used for mitigation, then I thought what's the point, the chance of these two getting a fair trial are lower than my chances of winning the lottery that I don't play.

eugegall

The CPS HAVE to have an example of these two idiots. Irrespective of their motives, they need the maximum allowable sentence to prevent school kids who get drones for Christmas from doing a copycat around the country.