Hussain & Anor, R v

Deliberately directing a powerful laser at an aircraft, and continuing to target it while the pilot takes evasive action, creates an exceptionally serious risk to flight safety. Such conduct passes the custody threshold and will usually require an immediate custodial sentence.

In assessing seriousness, the court may distinguish a case of accidental or negligent illumination from sustained and deliberate targeting. Personal mitigation and limited previous offending may carry reduced weight where the conduct presents a grave risk of catastrophe.

The two applicants pleaded guilty in Thames Magistrates’ Court to recklessly acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft. They were committed to the Crown Court at Snaresbrook for sentence and each received six months’ custody: imprisonment for Hussain and detention in a young offender institution for Miah.

They had jointly used a green laser pen to target a police helicopter at night for several minutes. The beam illuminated the cockpit and caused the pilot to take emergency evasive action. Their applications for leave to appeal sentence were referred to the full Court of Appeal.

The central issue was whether the six-month custodial sentences were manifestly excessive, particularly when compared with Voice.

1. The court rejected both applications. The sentences of six months’ custody were not excessive and were the least sentences that could properly have been imposed.

2. The applicants deliberately and jointly directed a green laser at a police helicopter during night operations. The beam completely illuminated the dimly lit cockpit, impaired the pilot’s ability to see instruments and outside the aircraft, and required urgent action to preserve flight safety. The applicants continued targeting the helicopter as it manoeuvred away from the beam.

3. The conduct plainly passed the custody threshold. The danger of loss of night vision, particularly for a police helicopter operating at low altitude, created an obvious potential for catastrophe. The court endorsed the sentencing judge’s indication that offenders caught deliberately targeting helicopters in this way should usually expect custody.

4. Voice was properly distinguished. In that case, the bright torch had a legitimate, if misguided, purpose; the illumination was negligent; and the aircraft passed through the beam without being pursued. Here there was no legitimate purpose, the laser was discarded when the applicants fled, and the beam was deliberately kept on the helicopter for several minutes.

5. The guilty pleas and limited significance of the applicants’ previous convictions did not justify a lesser penalty. Personal mitigation carried less weight in view of the seriousness of the risk created.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): applications for leave to appeal sentence referred to the full court and rejected; the six-month custodial sentences remained in force.
• Crown Court at Snaresbrook: on 15 May 2008, each applicant was sentenced to six months’ custody after committal for sentence from the magistrates’ court.
• Thames Magistrates’ Court: on 25 March 2008, both applicants pleaded guilty to recklessly acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft and were committed for sentence.