Aviation (Offences) Bill

Purpose and Intended Effect

1. The purpose of the Bill is to introduce police powers of arrest to deal with drunk or disruptive passengers on aircraft and to increase the penalty for endangering the safety of an aircraft. The Bill would allow the possibility of introducing a maximum penalty of five years, through an Air Navigation Order (ANO), for an offence relating to endangering an aircraft or a person in an aircraft (currently section 63 of the ANO), and make the offences of drunkenness in an aircraft and acting in a disruptive manner arrestable, but without increasing the penalty.

Risks

2. In extremis, a serious incident of disruptive passenger behaviour on an aircraft could lead to a fatal crash. Fortunately this has never happened. However, more serious incidents sometimes result in diversions, and any incident can be very unpleasant for both crew and passengers. This is reflected by the fact that "air rage" has a high media profile, even though the number of incidents in a year is relatively small.

3. In its January 2000 report, entitled Powers and Penalties for Offences on Aircraft and Aerodromes, the UK Airports Police Commanders' Group referred to a survey of incidents reported to Police at UK airports between July and December 1998. 1615 incidents were reported, of which 44 % related to disruptive behaviour. 57% of all cases were dealt by giving advice, 14% resulted in a verbal warning and in 22% of cases there was a summons or arrest (the remaining cases were cancelled before arrival). Therefore, approximately 156 cases relating to disruptive behaviour resulted in a summons or arrest. The report concluded that penalties were inadequate and police powers ineffective to deal with offences. It recommended changes to the law to increase the penalty or give a statutory power of arrest for certain in-flight offences, to allow the police and courts to deal more effectively with offenders.

4. The Department's latest statistics for disruptive passenger behaviour on UK aircraft revealed 1,055 incidents in the year to March 2002. Of these, 50% were classed as significant and 5% were classed as serious. Alcohol was a contributory factor in around 45% of all incidents, although many of these may have been minor. The police or security attended 196 of the reported incidents.

5. Section 61 (2) (c) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 states that an Air Navigation Order may carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Accordingly, the offences of endangering the safety of an aircraft, drunkenness in an aircraft and acting in a disruptive manner, all of which are offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000, carry a maximum penalty of two years. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, Schedule 1A powers of arrest exist only for offences with a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. This means that, under current rules, the police can only report offenders for summons and cannot usually detain them while they carry out immediate inquiries, even if they can be clearly identified by aircrew or passengers. This can mean that for charges to be made, the police have to travel to the suspect's address and call in witnesses from afar. The fact that they have not been able to search or fingerprint suspects can also mean that a prosecution is less likely.

6. In any case, a maximum penalty of two years is inadequate for offences that are often very serious and, by definition, pose a threat to the safety of an aircraft. At least one Judge has commented that he would have imposed a longer sentence, had one been available.

Benefits

7. Increasing the maximum penalty for endangering the safety of an aircraft would have the benefit of introducing a proportionate penalty for what are often serious offences. The police are aware of cases where the safety of an aircraft or those on-board has been threatened but, on sentencing, the courts have been restricted to a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. In at least one case (the Mullahy case, 1996) the Judge called for an increase in the penalty for endangering the safety of an aircraft. An increase in maximum penalty should also have some deterrent effect and could lead to a reduction in the number of incidents.

8. Increasing the maximum penalty to five years imprisonment (which is the minimum necessary for an automatic power of arrest), and giving police statutory powers of arrest for drunkenness and disruptive behaviour offences, but without increasing the penalty, will mean that the police have the power to arrest suspected offenders, search the suspect and take witness statements. Without this power, at present for charges to be made, the police can only take a suspect's name and address and issue a summons at a later date. A suspect may live a long distance from the airport and in order to carry out interviews the police may sometimes have to travel a long way and call in witnesses from afar, thereby using up more police time. Giving the police new powers of arrest would enable a suspect to be questioned and charged whilst still at the airport, thereby saving considerable police time, perhaps hundreds of hours over a year.

9. In serious incidents of disruptive passenger behaviour the aircraft can be diverted (there were six such occasions in 2001-02 and 13 the previous year), thereby causing inconvenience and delay to all passengers. Drunken or disruptive passengers can also delay departure, either because they are refused boarding or because they are subsequently disembarked. There were 155 such incidents in 2001-02. It is hoped that making prosecutions more effective will act as a deterrent and reduce the number of times when these sort of incidents occur.

Costs

10. There would be an increase in cost if offenders are imprisoned for longer periods. However, the number of prosecutions for endangering the safety of an aircraft is extremely small (less than 25[1] in 2001) and such costs would be outweighed by the benefits above.

11. Giving the police increased powers is expected to ensure more effective prosecutions, which should in turn lead to more offenders being taken to trial. This would therefore mean increased work for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS). However, the number of cases each year is relatively small. In 2001 there were only 58 cases proceeded against for the drunkenness offence, and less than 25 for the other two offences[2]. Even if these numbers were doubled, in terms of the CPS's overall resources the effect should be negligible.

12. In any case, any costs involved with an increased number of prosecutions are outweighed by the overall benefits of deterring disruptive passenger behaviour, which may in time lead to a reduction in cases.

Impact on Small Businesses

13. The changes proposed in this Bill would not affect airlines' operations and would have no impact on businesses.

Consultation

14. The proposed measures have the support of the Government's Disruptive Passengers Working Group, whose membership includes the police, the Home Office, the Civil Aviation Authority, airline, and flight crew representatives.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Review

15. The Disruptive Passengers Working Group, which was set up by Lord Macdonald in 1999, meets regularly to review progress on minimising the occurrence and seriousness of disruptive behaviour. The Group will monitor the effect of these changes as part of its work.

Recommendation

16. That the Government supports this Bill.

Declaration

17. I have read the regulatory impact assessment and I am satisfied that the benefits justifiy the costs.

David Jamieson MP
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
Department for Transport

February 2003

Contact Point :

Tim May
MLD2
DfT
Zone 1/27
Great Minster House
76 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DR
Tel : 020 7944 5881

[1] Home Office prosecution statistics do not record separately the offence of endangering the safety of an aircraft. The offence is recorded among a group of 24 offences set out in the Air Navigation Order 2000, most of which are not related to disruptive passenger behaviour but apply to aircraft operators. 25 is the total number of prosecutions for all these offences. The number of prosecutions for endangering the safety of an aircraft is not therefore known but will be between 0-25. We estimate that the actual figure is in fact likely to be less than 10.

[2] Footnote 1 above also applies to the offence of acting in a disruptive manner.