| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7 Feb 2003 : Column 606—continued
Miss McIntosh: I am delighted to say that Lord Whitty pressed for international action to ensure that crimes committed on board aircraft are prosecuted appropriately in all states. I hope that we hear that that provision is to be extended to preventing offenders from boarding aircraft in an unfit state. We learned this from Lord Whitty in the January 1999 debate:
- "The . . . problem relates to offences committed abroad which are pursued abroad and prosecuted in foreign courts."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 January 1999; Vol. 596, c. 155.]
I note for my right hon. Friend's benefit that in the early years of civil aviation the main international concern was the problem of gaps in jurisdiction over offences committed aboard aircraft. There is a distinction in that common law countries, on the whole, claimed territorial jurisdiction only and did not always consider their aircraft to be part of their territory. Civil law countries, on the other hand, claimed jurisdiction over offences committed by their own nationals abroad, to a greater or lesser extent.
Some states might grant extradition only if their national law allowed, but they were under no international obligation to do so. Many states refused to extradite their own nationals, and most refused that for political offences. My right hon. Friend referred to the 1963 Tokyo convention on offences and certain other acts committed on board aircraft, which is concerned with establishing jurisdiction over offences committed on board aircraft and the extradition of offenders. It is important to draw it to the Minister's attention that
there is a gap in law, which, I note with some disappointment, the Bill fails to address. However, there is still time to amend the Bill being considered in Committee, and I shall seek to do that.On a point of information, the Tokyo convention was enacted in UK law by the Tokyo Convention Act 1967, which was replaced by parts of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, section 92(1) of which applies criminal law to aircraft. Section 94(1), (2) and (3) implement article 6 of the convention, which provides the commander of an aircraft with the power to impose reasonable measures on a passenger to protect the safety of the aircraft. That is the scenario that my hon. and right hon. Friends referred to during this excellent debate.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will be interested to know that the European Commission published a communication on the protection of air passengers in the European Union. It was considered by the European Parliament, where he served with great distinction for a number of years, early in 2001. The European Parliament considered whether there was a need for more and broader legislation to combat air rage.
What is air rage and how is it described? We are probably hampered by the fact that we do not have an adequate definition of air rage. One might have looked to this Bill to define air rage, but I am disappointed to find that it provides no assistance in that regard. I thought that it would be helpful therefore to look at how air rage has been dealt with by other jurisdictions.
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend is touching on the phrase "specified behaviour" which is the only term that appears in the Bill. Perhaps she is about to suggest—it might be a good idea—that when the Bill is considered in Committee some of the wording that she has found might be suitable for inclusion, perhaps in a schedule, to help those who, in difficult circumstances, seek to interpret that term, the better to exercise the powers that they have been given under the Bill. Will she consider that when she gives us these helpful examples?
Miss McIntosh: That is a helpful suggestion. Unfortunately, the Library has given me the German law in the original language, so I shall have to look further into that. I have only a conversational knowledge of German, so I shall refer to other jurisdictions.
I know that my right hon. Friend is a great admirer of all things American, particularly the American legal system, so I shall start with the Federal Aviation Administration which is the responsible authority in the United States and issues operations bulletins to air carriers. Its most recent air carrier operations bulletin, No. 1-94-1 on service of alcoholic beverages, states:
- "The boarding of a passenger who appears to be intoxicated is a violation of . . . the Federal Aviation Regulations."
US federal aviation regulations also require operators to report passenger disturbances associated with alcohol within five days. That highlights another gap in the Bill. Should an offending passenger fail to be arrested because a police officer has not arrived in time or because other passengers on the flight are too nervous and frightened of a particularly aggressive or disruptive passenger, is there a time frame within which the offence cannot be prosecuted because the offending person has not been arrested?
The Federal Aviation Administration bulletin states:
- "interference with a crew member"—
- "may also be a criminal violation under... the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, as amended."
Mr. Swayne: What is wrong with the formulation that was used in the amendment to the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995,
- "acting in a disruptive manner",
Miss McIntosh: That seemed like the start of a helpful suggestion. Perhaps the Minister will put us right.
Under the German law on air rage offences, there are two main provisions pertinent to what is called the unruly behaviour of passengers on a German aircraft. Most of the offences committed as a consequence of drunkenness, such as insult or assault, are covered by the respective articles of the German criminal code. According to article 315, it is an offence seriously to endanger an aircraft, for example by destroying equipment. One hesitates to think what equipment might be destroyed. Alcohol is not specifically mentioned and where passengers are concerned the consumption of alcohol is not an offence in itself.
Article 29, paragraph 3, of the German air traffic law holds the captain responsible for security on board and authorises him to take any necessary measures. Under the ICAO and US and German law, and, I believe, our own law, which applies across the kingdom, the captain is responsible and authorised to take any necessary measures. Although not explicitly stated, it is understood that that might include preventing a passenger from drinking alcohol. If there is a German law in that regard, it is right that we in Britain should seek to introduce one, particularly in regard to a passenger who is already a little the worse for alcohol. Certainly, such passengers should be prevented from taking their own alcohol on the plane.
However, both provisions applying in Germany are restricted to cases where danger is concrete. A specific law concerning unruly passengers is being drafted. As I
mentioned, regrettably, the German law is available only in German, but before Committee stage I shall endeavour to obtain clarification.As I am half Danish and have family in Denmark I am particularly interested in the Danish situation, and the Danish Air Navigation Act is available on the internet. While there is nothing in the Act about passengers being drunk, chapter 5 contains provisions for the breath testing of crew suspected of drinking, which may be of interest in the context of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. Why, if we are introducing prescribed limits for aviation crew—flight crew and attendants—can the Minister not extend the provisions of that Bill to passengers? There should be some mechanism for preventing passengers already a little worse for wear from boarding a plane.
Chapter 5 of the Danish Act repeats that the pilot in command has supreme authority on board, and goes on to state in article 44(2) that when necessary in the interest of aircraft safety or protection of passengers or goods on board, crew members and passengers may, without being asked by the pilot in command, implement preventive measures, including the use of force, to the extent that it can be justified in the circumstances.
Article 45 goes on to say that if a serious offence is committed on board an aircraft, the pilot in command shall, to clear up the matter, take all necessary measures that cannot be postponed without being detrimental—presumably to the flight.
I should like to refer to three recent court cases illustrating the legal implications of air rage. The judgment pronounced in the case of Regina v. Julian Ayodeji on 31 August 2000 held that a sentence of eight months' imprisonment was appropriate. The defendant was a 32-year-old male—another male, Madam Deputy Speaker—who pleaded guilty to a charge of being drunk on an aircraft, contrary to article 57(1) of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995. The judge was entitled to consider the fact that fellow passengers must have been utterly terrified. The verdict did not mean that he had been sentenced on the basis of the more serious offence of endangering an aircraft.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |