L, R (disrupting services at an aerodrome)

A custodial sentence was justified for deliberate and dangerously disruptive use of an aircraft at an aerodrome. However, sentence must give sufficient weight to exceptional personal mitigation. Relevant matters included an isolated and out-of-character loss of control, positive good character, remorse, guilty pleas, a low risk of reoffending, the absence of any need for personal deterrence, and the likely loss of livelihood caused by imprisonment.

Where those matters substantially reduce the need for punishment, a sentence may be manifestly excessive despite the grave nature of the offending and the need for public protection.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the Warwick Crown Court to disrupting services at an aerodrome with intent, contrary to sections 1(2)(b) and 1(5) of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990, and to damaging property. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for the aerodrome offence; no separate penalty was imposed for the damage offence.

Following a dispute with the airport director, the appellant used his helicopter to close the airport, impede aircraft movements, intimidate pilots and control-tower staff, and cause the control tower to be evacuated. He appealed, with leave, against sentence. The central issue was whether three years’ imprisonment was manifestly excessive in light of the seriousness of the conduct and the substantial mitigation.

1. The Court allowed the appeal against sentence to a limited extent. It quashed the sentence of three years’ imprisonment and substituted a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

2. The sentencing judge had been fully justified in imposing immediate custody. The appellant’s use of a helicopter was foolhardy and extremely dangerous. It closed the airport, disrupted aircraft, created a collision risk, and caused fear that the control tower might be struck. The seriousness of the conduct was reflected in the available maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

3. Nevertheless, the Court concluded that insufficient allowance had been made for mitigation. The appellant was of exemplary and positive good character. His conduct was wholly out of character and followed what he perceived as unreasonable treatment by those operating the airport. That background did not excuse the offending, but helped explain his loss of control.

4. There was no realistic prospect of reoffending and no need for a deterrent element directed at this appellant. The Court also gave weight to his remorse, guilty pleas, psychiatric consequences, and the exceptional effect of custody upon a professional helicopter pilot whose livelihood was likely to be lost beyond the term of imprisonment.

5. Public perception did not require a three-year term. A sentence tailored to secure the appellant’s immediate release was, however, inappropriate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence in part and substituted two years’ imprisonment: [2003] EWCA Crim 243.

• Warwick Crown Court: His Honour Judge Coates sentenced the appellant on 12 April 2002 to three years’ imprisonment after guilty pleas to disrupting services at an aerodrome with intent and damaging property.