Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > British Airways | Executive Club
Reload this Page >

Banker, 33, is cleared of assaulting BA cabin crew

Banker, 33, is cleared of assaulting BA cabin crew

Old Jan 14, 2022, 8:28 am
  #46  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 7,168
Originally Posted by krispy84
If the offence he was charged with was assault, and he was found not guilty, can one not then reasonably say that he did not assault the victim(s)?

He may have physically struck the crew, but the jury decided it wasnt assault?
This is from the mylondon website, I believe taken from the court proceedings:

This included walking up and down the business class aisle whilst shouting and throwing chocolate bars.

Prosecutor Paul Edwards said that he had demanded to see his friends, at which the cabin crew had told him it would be impossible as he was 38,000ft in the air.

He had also been using a vape and had shoutedc, Dont you know who I am? during the rampage.

When confronted by flight attendant Amy Stewart, he had responded by pulling up his t-shirt and attempting to put it over her head.

It was at this point that cabin crew decided to restrain him, and Mr Clegg became increasingly aggressive.

He threw flight attendant Jamie Marsh to the floor and tried to head butt Ms Stewart three times.

Three other members of the cabin crew were also assaulted before Mr Clegg was restrained at the back of the plane.
Heathrow: British Airways passenger who beat up cabin crew after downing sleeping pills and wine cleared of all charges - MyLondon

Legal nomenclature doesn't quite change the fact that the man beat five crews...
13901 is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 8:45 am
  #47  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by krispy84
If the offence he was charged with was assault, and he was found not guilty, can one not then reasonably say that he did not assault the victim(s)?

He may have physically struck the crew, but the jury decided it wasn’t assault?

As you can no doubt tell I’m not a lawyer, so apologies if I’m being slow, just trying to work out the logic.
The is no doubt the crew were assaulted, the jury decided that on the evidence presented the defendant was not ‘criminally’ liable for that assault and found him not guilty of the charges he faced. There may have been alternative charges the CPS could have brought (and chose not to) and that same jury might have found the defendant criminally responsible for the assault under other charges.

The “Just Because You Did It Doesn't Mean You’re Guilty” billboard ad posted above is correct, it all depends on the charge the CPS brings. For example: two men have an argument out side a pub, one man throws a single punch at the other when that man tried to take a swing at him. That single punch results in the other man’s death. A murder charge ensues. Is the first man guilty of murder? No. The single punch was an attempt at self defence, a permitted defence to a charge involving violence.

Let’s use the same circumstances, but this time the medical evidence shows the dead man had an unusually thin skull and died not because of the punch but as a result of tripping after being punched and banging his head on the ground? Is that still murder? No. The charge should have been manslaughter because there was no intent to cause death or grievous bodily harm. So yes, the first man ‘did it’ but he is not guilty of the offence brought.

There are also other defences available, it appears (I don’t know because I wasn’t there) that this current case pursued a defence of incapacity, if incapacity can be demonstrated in evidence then whilst it does not provide a technical defence to a crime in itself it does negate the mens rea. The mens rea is the criminal intent, the mental element of an individual’s intention to commit a crime, or the knowledge that one's action action would cause a crime to be committed. The means rea is an essential element that must (with very limited exceptions) be present for a criminal offence to be committed.

Last edited by Tobias-UK; Jan 14, 2022 at 8:51 am
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 9:39 am
  #48  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK - Hampshire & London
Programs: Mucci de Guardian des Celliers des Grands Crus 1e Class, plus BAEC.
Posts: 2,720
Originally Posted by Tobias-UK


.
Thanks very much, v helpful 👍
Tobias-UK likes this.
krispy84 is online now  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 12:02 pm
  #49  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Home
Programs: Virgin FC, Qantas, Golden Circle, Sofitel, Hyatt, Starwood, Nectar, and my Tesco Club Card
Posts: 1,769
Originally Posted by Funky Spike
So the Ambien was his defence?
How is this different to a pissed up driver running in to someone or a coked up freak picking a fight?

Spike
Big difference, possibly - if I drink I know from previous experience that I'm likely to eventually get drunk and that might lead to some of the usual things associated with drinking too much,. Therefore I don't really have any defence or mitigation saying "It was the alcohol that caused it". Personally, I have no idea what effect Ambien would have on me or if these are worse if it is mixed with alcohol or taken at altitude.
Kettering Northants QC is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 12:08 pm
  #50  
Ambassador, British Airways Executive Club, easyJet and Ryanair
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK/Las Vegas
Programs: BA Gold (GGL/CCR)
Posts: 15,882
Originally Posted by Kettering Northants QC
Big difference, possibly - if I drink I know from previous experience that I'm likely to eventually get drunk and that might lead to some of the usual things associated with drinking too much,. Therefore I don't really have any defence or mitigation saying "It was the alcohol that caused it". Personally, I have no idea what effect Ambien would have on me or if these are worse if it is mixed with alcohol or taken at altitude.
Unless a drink is spiked, the consumption of alcohol/recreational drugs in itself would not be persuasive in pursuing a defence of incapacity. Indeed the defence is a once only deal, once you know the consequences of taking a particular medication in combination with alcohol you are aware deemed to be aware of its potential affect on you.
Tobias-UK is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 12:19 pm
  #51  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Argentina
Posts: 40,167
A very lucky chap.
HIDDY is offline  
Old Jan 14, 2022, 5:34 pm
  #52  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: LAX
Posts: 10,904
Originally Posted by ewoo
Ambien is a scary drug. Some people handle it just fine. Others do crazy *** and don't remember any of it the next morning.
No need to be scared. Over many years Ambien and generic equivalents had smth like 30-40 mil annual prescriptions in US alone. Very very few do crazy *** and dont remember it although it is possible and can lead to entertaining urban legends. Generally speaking a drug with serious side effects would not be on the market on that scale.
azepine00 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.