|Previous Section||Back to Table of Contents||Lords Hansard Home Page|
I wish to start the debate by giving a little background to why I am introducing this Bill today. A little over a year ago my attention was drawn to a number of serious offences that had taken place on foreign registered aircraft landing in this country. These included the attempted rape of a stewardess on a flight from Hong Kong, a serious assault on a flight service director on a Qantas flight from Australia and a fight among three British passengers on a Royal Air Maroc flight to Manchester which resulted in grievous bodily harm. In each case when the aircraft landed here the police were unable to take action because the incidents took place on foreign registered aircraft outside United Kingdom airspace.
These matters have been drawn to my attention by the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK, BAR-UK, which represents almost 90 airlines, all but six of them foreign airlines, flying to and from this country, which are of course vulnerable to the loophole in the law which this Bill would stop. Qantas had earlier commissioned a legal opinion on the subject by Mr. Robert Webb QC, Mr. David Hart and my noble friend Lord Hacking, who I am sure will say more about this in his speech later.
The Bill before your Lordships this evening has been prepared for me by BAR-UK, and it has the support of the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Air Transport Users Committee, which is the statutory consumer protection body set up by the Civil Aviation Authority, the airport companies BAA plc and Manchester Airport, British Airways and the Police Federation.
During my Question in the House a year ago, my noble friend Lady Blatch undertook to look into the matter and in due course the Home Office published a note reviewing the position. In it it posed a number of questions: first, is there a gap in the criminal law, and is it a serious gap--are serious offenders getting away? Secondly, are there a sufficient number of incidents each year in which offenders escape justice for action to be necessary; and, lastly, if action is required what measures can be taken?
On the second point, the number of incidents, a survey was undertaken during September and October last year. This showed some 10 incidents on aircraft landing at Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester. Of these, four occurred on British aircraft, two leading to charges and two to cautions. One of those charged was sent to gaol for assault. Six took place on foreign aircraft, including cases of drunkenness and abusive behaviour, spitting at the crew and assaulting passengers and crew. In each of these cases the aircraft was met by the police but they were powerless to act. I believe these and the incidents that I have already described demonstrate that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.
it is easily the UK's busiest airport, with some 52 million passengers a year, rising at 6 per cent. a year. It is the busiest international airport in the world, with 82 foreign airlines operating at it, which I suspect is a world record, and with an average of some 550 arrivals a day.
On the third question, if action is required, what measures can be taken, I believe this Bill provides the best solution; that is, to amend Section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which deals with the application of criminal law to British controlled aircraft, to cover UK-bound foreign aircraft. I am well aware that we are talking here about extra-territorial jurisdiction, and that is an issue that has received much attention recently.
I would say that this country already exercises extra-territorial jurisdiction, and has done for many years in a number of areas. Slavery, piracy and war crimes are examples. Under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1995 which consolidated the old 1894 Act, British subjects, not being crew members, on foreign ships and foreigners on British ships may be tried in this country if they commit offences which would have been offences if they had occurred in the UK. The Aviation Security Act 1982 has given jurisdiction to the UK courts over hijacking and other offences committed on or in relation to aircraft in flight, wherever they are and whatever their country of registration. But these provisions apply only to conduct which destroys, damages or endangers the safety of the aircraft, or may do so. With a few exceptions, if the aircraft is not harmed or put at risk, the courts have no jurisdiction over the sort of cases I have described.
We are out of step with the rest of the world. Many countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, France, and Belgium, already have similar jurisdiction. The laws in France and Belgium include the commendably simple formula that if the aircraft lands in those countries after the offence, the offenders may be charged and prosecuted.
The Government have announced a review of the law on extra-territorial jurisdiction which would cover crimes on foreign aircraft, but only by UK nationals. This could result in an anomalous situation if British but not foreign participants in an affray on the aircraft were to be prosecuted. Incidentally, that might make an interesting story for the tabloid press if it ever happened like that.
The proposals to extend the jurisdiction of our courts to deal with sexual and other offences abroad which were recently debated in this House have drawn attention to the practical difficulties of prosecuting those committing offences abroad where it may be impractical to get victims and other witnesses to give evidence in court here. Those difficulties would not apply to crimes on aircraft where all the parties are present in the UK immediately after the commission of the offence. The overseas airlines in membership of BAR-UK have given me an assurance that in appropriate cases their staff will come to this country to give evidence in court later.
I acknowledge the need for clarity as to what offences would be caught by the Bill. The solution proposed is simple. The Bill would give our courts jurisdiction over crimes on foreign aircraft which actually arrive in the UK. This would apply whether the arrival were scheduled or not. That is necessary, for example, to cover the case where a foreign aircraft makes an unscheduled stop to put off a violent passenger. Conversely, where a flight has several stops, only offences committed on the last leg before arrival in the UK would be covered by the Bill.
Proper control over bringing prosecutions would be exercised in England and Wales by the Director of Public Prosecutions, whose consent would be required to proceedings, just as it is where offences are committed on British controlled aircraft. The law allows suspects to be arrested and detained while the DPP's consent is sought. That in practice is often obtained within hours.
I hope that I have demonstrated the need for the Bill, that it would work and that we need it now. The police are, I know, frustrated by their inability to act in the cases I have described. It goes against all their professional instincts and training. For other passengers on a flight, it can be an alarming and frightening experience to witness violence or worse, with no means
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, from these Benches this short, commendably clear and necessary Bill has our support. We are satisfied that there is a real problem which is causing growing disquiet about our law among overseas airlines flying to this country. We are satisfied that there is at present a gap in our law which, in consequence, leaves both passengers and crew members on foreign aircraft flying here in some cases without effective protection from crime committed on board, during the flight and before the aeroplane reaches British airspace. We are also satisfied that the Bill provides a means of closing the present lacuna in the law which on occasions denies that protection to airline staff and travellers alike.
This House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, for outlining the need for the Bill and its provisions with such clarity and force. The present position is clearly wholly unsatisfactory. In general terms, as I understand it, the police in the UK can arrest a passenger on a foreign registered aircraft on arrival following the commission of a criminal offence committed on board during the flight only if the offence either occurred in UK airspace or involves an act of violence which endangers the actual safety of the aircraft. That last phrase is currently being interpreted by the enforcement authorities as meaning an act which interferes with the body of the aircraft--for example, damage of a kind likely to cause decompression--or an attack on a member of the flight crew who is actually in control of the plane.
Where the United Kingdom authorities do not consider that they have jurisdiction under those provisions, the alternative recourse is to the Tokyo Convention, under the provisions of which the offender may be extradited back to the country where the aeroplane is registered. But then, as the noble Lord has already indicated, difficulties arise in obtaining provisional warrants under Section 8 of the Extradition Act, both because it takes time and also because the country which has jurisdiction may take the view that the cost and trouble of extradition proceedings are disproportionate to the offence, especially if the victim is not one of its own nationals. That country can and often does decide to do nothing, sometimes even in serious cases, and then the offender escapes scot-free.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, has already given two examples which have come to his notice. A third serious one came to mine. On a flight from Bahrein to Heathrow, a male passenger sexually assaulted a female
Offences of theft, sexual assault and violence are being committed, unhappily, with impunity in those circumstances. The problem is not likely to decrease; rather the reverse, as more people travel by air and more people use long-haul flights. It simply cannot be right that someone travelling to this country on a foreign airline can get away with impunity with sexually molesting the stewardess, punching his fellow passengers or stealing their belongings simply because he commits the offence before entering United Kingdom airspace.
Surely it is also important that Britain should play its part in seeking a general improvement in international air safety, including safety from in-flight crime, by enacting legislation such as that proposed in the Bill which is already in force elsewhere. I understand that there has already been extensive consultation and widespread support for the Bill. We should not allow crime in the air to go unpunished simply because there is a gap in our law. This Bill is a means by which that gap might be closed.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, just said, the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, deserves public gratitude for having introduced this Bill to tackle a real mischief. As the noble Lord so clearly explained, the mischief is that our courts have no power to deal with crimes committed on board foreign aircraft while in flight to the United Kingdom, even when this is the first country in which the aircraft lands after the crime has been committed.
Unlike the position in Australia, Canada, the United States and other countries, Parliament has failed to extend extra-territorial jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, for example, as was stated, involving physical and sexual assault committed in foreign aircraft on scheduled flights. In the case of Canadian and United States law, the jurisdiction of their courts apparently includes incidents between passengers. Again, unlike the laws of Canada and the United States, our law does not permit prosecutions to be brought for other serious offences committed on board foreign aircraft, such as receiving stolen property or theft.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness gave graphic examples of serious incidents that have taken place on foreign flights to UK airports in the recent past. Those incidents, involving considerable disturbance to other passengers and crew and serious offences against the person, have not been able to be dealt with by our courts even though all the witnesses were present in this
It is just 30 years since the publication of a third edition of the book by Shawcross and Beaumont, Air Law, to which I contributed, as one of three editors, as a young, aspiring aviation lawyer who never quite made it in that field. In that sense, I declare a professional interest, although my only experience of the criminal law in this field is in defending glamorous women pilots, one of whom flew under a bridge on the motorway on the way to Oxford in making a film. In that book, I quoted all those years ago from a splendid lecture given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. I am sorry he is not in his place. It was on crime in aircraft, and was published in the journal of the Royal Aeronautical Society in 1963. The lecture is even more relevant today than it was when it was given. I hope noble Lords will allow me to quote a passage from it. This is what the noble and learned Lord wrote:
Those observations by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, have even greater force today, 33 years later, when there are ever larger aircraft, many more passengers and much more frequent use of long-haul flights. The incidence of in-flight violence and other crimes on aircraft have become a real and pressing problem for the airlines, their crews and their passengers.
In that lecture the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, also pointed out that many different parties, often with differing interests, may be concerned when a crime has been committed on board an aircraft. For example, when a crime which occurs on an aircraft registered in state A while flying over state B is committed by a national of state C against a national of state D, after which the aircraft lands in state E, all five states A, B, C, D and E may claim jurisdiction; and
I have asked myself whether there is any objection in principle to extending extra-territorial jurisdiction in the way proposed by the Bill, whether as a matter of international law and international comity or as a matter of British constitutional principle and convention. I do not consider that there is such an objection in the situations covered by this Bill.
The traditional basis for criminal jurisdiction in this country is territorial. Our courts are concerned only with conduct which is an offence against our law. The general assumption, as we all know, is that to be an offence against English law, conduct must in some degree be connected with the territory of England and Wales. In most cases that means that the conduct must occur in England or Wales. Unless the contrary appears expressly or by necessary implication, Acts of Parliament are not concerned with matters taking place beyond UK territorial limits.
But, as the noble Lord said, there are significant exceptions. Particular kinds of conduct by persons outside the territory have been made an offence under English law. If I may add to the list, that applies, for example, to crimes having an international character: hijacking, drug trafficking, terrorism, genocide or torture, where Parliament has enacted legislation to give effect to international conventions dealing with those serious transnational problems.
It is because international carriage of passengers and goods by air requires the highest standards of safety and good order that the international community has entered into the Tokyo, Hague and Montreal Conventions. But those conventions are inadequate in grappling with the problems that the Bill now raises. Luckily, the Tokyo Convention, as the noble Lord said, specifically provides that it does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with national law. It leaves the states parties free to enact a Bill of this kind.
Another problem is that the Tokyo Convention obliges countries to take into custody only those who have been involved in a hijacking or who have committed a serious offence according to the penal code of the state of registration of the aircraft. Furthermore, they can keep such persons in custody only for such time as is reasonably necessary to enable extradition proceedings to be instituted.
It is profoundly unsatisfactory that the only safeguard that now exists is the wholly ineffective safeguard that the wrongdoer may be extradited to the state of registration of the aircraft; that is, to the state of the law of the aircraft's flag. It is wholly ineffective not only because the state of registration may be reluctant to apply for extradition, but also because by the time that extradition takes place, all the witnesses will have dispersed across the world and memories will have become stale.
Furthermore, the powers and duties of states in Chapter 4 of the Tokyo Convention have not been fully incorporated into our legislation as they apparently have been in Australia and North America. The result of the failure to enact the convention more fully into our law is that there is apparently no power for UK authorities to take into custody people who have been delivered to them by the aircraft commander pursuant to the Tokyo Convention.
I saw that point in the admirable opinion written by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, Robert Webb QC and David Hart. I wrote to the noble Baroness the Minister to ask whether the Government agreed with the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on that point. I hope that she will be able to deal with that matter in her reply. I also hope that, if the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is right--as, with respect, I believe that he is--that further gap in our legislation may be filled by this Bill at Committee stage.
Just as the unique circumstances of the international carriage of passengers and goods by air have caused the world's community to enact conventions dealing with threats to the safety and security of passengers and crews, so our national legislators are, in my view, fully entitled to go beyond international minimum standards and assert criminal jurisdiction over serious criminal wrongdoing recognised as culpable by the national criminal laws of all nations.
I can see that it may be desirable for the scope of the Bill to be confined to the kind of serious offences made unlawful under, for example, Australian, Canadian and United States law. But that is a matter of detail for the Committee stage. In principle, I can see no threat to international comity by asserting criminal jurisdiction concurrently with other states, notably the state of registration of the aircraft and the state of nationality of the criminal wrongdoer. I realise that that may encourage some other states, whose national legal systems are less obviously procedurally fair than is our own system, to assert a similar jurisdiction so that we, the people in this country, may find ourselves liable for similar misconduct to answer for ourselves before foreign courts; as it were, the procedurally unfair courts of Ruritania. However, I do not regard that as a major obstacle to the enactment of the Bill.
The enactment of the Bill may encourage the world community to strengthen the Tokyo Convention on similar lines. I believe that that would be an excellent result because international legislation provides the best means of tackling the menace of crimes in the international airspace, coupled always with strong and effective national measures. I therefore greatly welcome the Bill. I hope that it will have the Government's support and will be speedily enacted. Accordingly, I hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading and that the Government will give their crucial support to it both in this House and in another place.
It is not so long ago that aircraft could fly for a maximum of maybe three or four hours before having to land to refuel for an hour or so before taking off again. That was a not unpleasant means of long-haul travel. Nowadays, aircraft remain airborne for much longer and, despite in-flight entertainment, boredom can set in. That, combined with the effect of alcoholic beverages, can lead to a lack of consideration towards other passengers.
Presumably, because of a lack of self-control, incidents such as those already mentioned can and do occur. On short-haul flights the alcohol alone can be the catalyst. What does the pilot do if suitably worried? He can report the incident to air traffic control, who will report it to the police, who in turn may well be powerless to do anything at all. I would love to know how many times that situation arose when the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, was an air traffic controller.
That leads me neatly on to the Home Office note and the observation that there may be insufficient instances to warrant any action being taken. I hope that I am not being too simplistic when I say that one sexual assault or one physical attack is one sexual assault or physical attack too many. If that is being naive, where do we draw the line? If there are very few cases, then they will take up less court time and cost less than if they were numerous. To be able to prosecute everybody who commits an offence on a foreign airline is surely preferable to letting that person go uncharged and able to repeat the offence. The court machinery of course already exists.
I shudder to think what will happen when our aircraft can fly to and from Australia without landing. Perhaps a suitable sleeping draught will be put into passengers' drinks to overcome potential problems. I support the Bill.
Lord Hacking: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, were kind enough to refer to a legal opinion that I wrote three years ago with Mr. Robert Webb QC and Mr. David Hart of counsel. It therefore may be of some interest to the House if I explain my involvement in this matter. I do not do so to declare a financial interest--at least not a relevant financial interest--but because I always think that one of the helpful things which your Lordships can do in coming to the House is to give the benefit of professional and other experience outside the House.
It was four years ago, in about June 1992, that Quantas Airways, which instructed then my former law firm, sought my advice about one of the incidents to which my noble friend Lord Brabazon referred. It was a very painful incident. A British passenger boarded a Quantas flight in Bangkok on a flight bound for London.
He behaved disgracefully during the flight and culminating his appalling conduct with a "Liverpool kiss" to the flight service director. Unfortunately, the flight service director did not know what a Liverpool kiss was and certainly did not have time to avoid the vicious headbutt that was occasioned to his face. So serious was the headbutt that it damaged the nasal septum of his nose. He had serious numbness in the cheekbone and suffered cervical spine damage.
It is some time since I practised in the criminal courts--if I get this wrong I think the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, will be able to help me--but I identified that offence, if it had taken place in the United Kingdom, as grievous bodily harm with intent under, if my memory serves me correctly, Section 18 of the Offences against the Person Act. I am very glad to have nods from the noble Baroness because I have not looked at that for some time.
I had to advise Quantas Airways that, regrettably, the police at London airport were correct when they refused to exercise jurisdiction over this offender. I was then instructed to institute civil proceedings, but the difficulty there was that the assailant had disappeared off--he was an oil-rigger--to Pattaya City in Thailand and service difficulties of the civil documents was such that the case had to be abandoned. It was in those circumstances that Quantas Airways generously instructed my then law firm and Mr. David Hart of counsel and Mr. Robert Webb QC to write the opinion. Therefore, it has been most satisfying that since that opinion was written in June 1993 there have been such wide consultations.
I would particularly like to refer to the Home Office memorandum of March 1995 of my noble friend the Minister which I found to be a very constructive document looking at this problem. It has also been very reassuring to find the support that has been given to the Bill--support by all the speakers in the debate. I am delighted to note that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, found no threat to international comity in Britain seeking to extend jurisdiction in the circumstances of the Bill. A number of noble Lords who are unable to be present in the House tonight have indicated to me their support for the Bill--the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, and the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn.
It has also been nice to record the support of the BAA, Manchester Airport and the police. Congratulations should go to the Board of Airline Representatives in the UK for the initiative that it has taken and to overseas airlines for all the support they have provided. It is very nice that the managing director in Europe of Quantas Airways is present in the House
Indeed, the chief executive of British Airways wrote a letter to my noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, which I hope has been shown to my noble friend the Minister. In the second paragraph of that letter he wrote:
While the number of incidents may be limited, our failure to exercise jurisdiction does cause grievous upset. Perhaps I may refer to another incident which my noble friend mentioned--the incident on a flight from Hong Kong. The airline concerned, Cathay Pacific, was so upset that it wrote to the Minister of State in these terms: we are,
He has referred to other jurisdictions, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Lester, which exercise jurisdiction over incidents taking place in aircraft coming into their airports. I believe that the most touching reference I can make is the application of United States law which exercises, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, said, jurisdiction in these circumstances. Judge Jack Weinstein, a well-known Federal judge in New York, said this about American law:
That does contrast, does it not, with the anguished protest that one of our foreign airlines had to give to our Government when it felt helpless as a result of no jurisdiction being exercised when one of its air hostesses suffered a fearful attack?
I believe that this Bill provides a simple remedy and it is therefore very reassuring that my noble friend has received such good support. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, raised an interesting point about a deficiency in our current law relating to the Tokyo Convention and Article 13(2), as the noble Lord knows. Consideration was given by my noble friend, who was kind enough to invite me into the consultations concerning the preparation of this Bill, as to whether we could include this measure which the noble Lord,
Perhaps I may end by pointing out the practical advantage of the measures proposed in this Bill. Years ago, when I practised in criminal matters at the Bar, I remember being instructed in affray and assault cases. The problem then was that the victim went in one direction and the witnesses went in another and the evidence became dispersed over the streets. The fact that an offence is taking place in an aircraft is an evidential dream to a prosecutor because out of that cylinder of the aircraft comes the victim, the offender and all the witnesses. They are all there ready to give evidence. As a prosecutor one cannot think of a more perfect collection of evidence. Of course, it arises out of very imperfect circumstances. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Brabazon for introducing this measure.
While the safety of the aircraft may not be at risk, the safety of the persons in it is certainly at risk. There is great fear among other passengers who are travelling in the aircraft to have a serious violent incident in such a small restricted area as an aeroplane. There is no escape from this very frightening experience. I am delighted that my noble friend has introduced this Bill to your Lordships' House. I hope that my noble friend will accept it and accelerate its journey on to the statute book.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, I hope to be brief because so many of my points have already been well made, not least by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara in his opening speech. Since leaving the Front Bench, he has developed a remarkable record in getting Private Members' Bills on to the statute book. I hope that his luck stays with him on this Bill. I share the view of all other speakers that it is a Bill of the greatest importance. Any Bill that is to do with transportation safety is a matter of the greatest importance. I believe that every speaker has used the word "safety", en passent, in his or her remarks.
The list of supporting bodies mentioned by my noble friend--I looked for the word "endorsements", but for those with driving licences, it means something else--underlines the importance that the aviation industry and related parties place upon our efforts tonight. While BARUK is essentially a body for foreign airlines, it has five or six British members. Although they are not covered by the Bill that we are discussing this evening, those airlines--our own very successful British industry--also support it. That seems to me to be of the greatest importance. That impresses me, as does the brief supplied to me by the police authorities at Manchester Airport. Recently voted the world's best airport, Manchester is at the heart of Euro 96, the European football championships. Football violence is a fact of life and is not confined to the Brits or to terra firma. The police at Manchester have experience
Many noble Lords have spoken of crimes of a personal nature: assault, affray, attempted rape and drunkenness. Another dimension is fire. Many airlines operate no smoking policies, including those that fly domestic sectors in the US where smoking in flight carries a penalty of up to $10,000. Much more insidious, vicious and certainly more dangerous are the asylum-seekers who, at embarkation, have survived the carrier's liability enforced (wrongly so in my view) upon all airlines flying to the United Kingdom. There are documented cases of such passengers who burn their passports and other relevant documents in flight. I have said before that the potential consequences of such activities terrify me.
Whether on-board offences are against people or property, they differ in two major respects from similar offences on the ground: one is safety; the other is that on the ground bystanders can walk away from an offence, but at 35,000 feet that is not an option.
More than 100 years ago the regulation of railways Act created the offence of endangering the safety of passengers on the railway. The powers are still used. Tonight, we are discussing the opportunity to give similar powers in respect of a specific group of aircraft. It relates perhaps to under 50 per cent. of those aircraft which arrive in this country, but it is a fairly broad band. As I and other noble Lords have said, safety must be our principal motivator. It is for that reason that I wish the Bill a happy landing.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must first congratulate my noble friend Lord Brabazon on introducing this Bill and on his helpful explanation of what it will achieve, and on all the support that he has received from around the Chamber.
I agree with my noble friend that it is wrong that someone should be able to escape prosecution for an offence committed on board an aircraft just because that aircraft was not registered in the United Kingdom. The Government agree that it is right that that anomaly should be addressed and the courts given jurisdiction over offences committed on a journey by air to the United Kingdom, if this country is the first place that the aircraft lands after the commission of the offence.
The Bill will require some amendment in Committee in order to ensure that the principle of dual criminality applies to offences committed on these aircraft; that is to say, that the act committed must be an offence both in this country and in the state of registration of the aircraft. In practice, I do not think that that condition will inhibit the prosecution of offenders, but it is an important principle. Our courts cannot take jurisdiction unless the act is a criminal offence in this country and should not take jurisdiction if the act is not an offence in the state of registration of the aircraft.
I shall not detain your Lordships by adding to the catalogue of dreadful stories that we have heard. Suffice to say that I do not believe that they have been exaggerated. They are not occurrences which are too common, but they are common enough to give us concern.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked whether I had ever experienced while on duty in air traffic control an aircraft landing with troublesome passengers. That was not an experience which I ever had. The aeroplanes had usually one person on board and that was the pilot, who was often a test pilot. If there were any passengers, it was often a navigator, but no one more troublesome than that. I cannot say that they were not troublesome when on the ground, but certainly not in the air.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, was kind enough to let me know that he was to raise the question of the implementation of Chapter 5 of the Tokyo Convention which deals with suspected offenders acting in breach of the convention. He will appreciate that questions relating to this country's compliance with its international obligations are serious ones to which we shall want to give fuller consideration than has been possible in the time available. I believe that I can reassure him in general terms. As my noble friend Lord Hacking said, Article 13 of the Tokyo Convention allows the commander of an aircraft landing in the UK to deliver to the British police any person who has committed an act on board the aircraft which would be an offence according to the law of the state of registration.
In our view UK law implements that article. A person may be taken into custody on being delivered to the British police by the commander of an aircraft if the circumstances warrant it. Custody will be justified either by a provisional warrant under the Extradition Act 1989 or by the bringing of criminal proceedings, if the offence is one over which we have jurisdiction.
We do not consider that that part of the convention means that the UK must take criminal jurisdiction over all offences committed by persons who may be delivered to the British police under Article 13. Had that been the intention, the convention would have said so in Chapter 2. Moreover, the convention cannot be read as envisaging custody without the prospect of subsequent proceedings, either criminal or extradition. That would be contrary to other, more fundamental, principles of international law.
However, the effect of the Bill is to go beyond the convention by extending UK jurisdiction to offences committed on incoming aircraft. That will make it more likely that a person delivered to British police under Article 13 will be held in custody for the purpose of prosecution.
Therefore, detention would be warranted if an offence was committed on a British registered aircraft or if a provisional warrant had been issued under the Extradition Act. As has already been said, the police would also detain someone who had committed an act of violence which endangered the safety of the aircraft or who had seized the aircraft, whatever the nationality of the offender or the state of registration of the aircraft. Those provisions flow from the Hague and Montreal Conventions rather than the Tokyo Convention, to which the opinion compiled by my noble friend Lord Hacking relates.
The Bill will give us jurisdiction over any offence committed on board a foreign registered aircraft landing in the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will find that explanation helpful. But, as I have already said, we wish to study his remarks carefully and will consider whether anything more is needed. At present our view is that adequate powers exist.
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page