Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
User avatar
By kanga
#1672410
Cub wrote:..rather than testing the behaviour against terrorist legislation.


er, it wasn't "terrorist legislation"; it was "aerodrome safety legislation", terrorism being one but not the only such sort of safety risk. The CPS judged that the legislation was applicable, and the jury agreed.

I assume that if a terrorism motive could have been adduced and persuaded the judge, the sentences would have been harsher, but IANAL

I note that the Crown reportedly is not seeking to recover costs from the defendants. If it had, that might have been a greater deterrent than custody :roll:
User avatar
By PeteSpencer
FLYER Club Member  FLYER Club Member
#1672440
I'd like to see the full case report: Have they left the door open for custodial sentences in the future or will 'Case Law' mean all future obstructionists will get off scot free...(relatively speaking).

Peter