May, R v

Recklessly directing a laser at an aircraft may warrant an immediate custodial sentence where the conduct creates a grave and potentially catastrophic risk to the crew and the public. Significant physical disabilities are relevant mitigation, but do not require suspension of a custodial sentence where the sentencing judge has properly taken them into account.

A Newton hearing is unnecessary where the facts admitted by a guilty plea are sufficient to sentence the offender. A plea admitting recklessness in this context admitted awareness of the risk and deliberate continuation of the conduct.

The applicant pleaded guilty at Southend Crown Court to recklessly acting in a manner likely to endanger an aircraft, contrary to article 73 of the Air Navigation Order 2005. He had shone a laser into the cockpit of a police helicopter, temporarily dazing and disorientating its pilot. He received six months’ immediate imprisonment.

He sought leave to appeal against sentence. He accepted that custody was justified, but contended that the sentence should have been suspended because of substantial permanent disabilities arising from an earlier motorcycle accident.

1. Leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The offence created a life-threatening risk to the helicopter crew and a risk of catastrophic consequences for persons on the ground. The sentencing judge was entitled to treat it as very serious and to impose an immediate custodial sentence.

2. The applicant’s permanent disabilities were substantial and relevant to mitigation. However, the judge had adequately taken them into account. The available prison reports also showed that the applicant’s mobility difficulties had not prevented him from participating beneficially in prison activities and courses.

3. The six-month sentence was not arguably manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. There was therefore no basis for granting leave to appeal.

4. The court additionally observed that the Newton hearing had been unnecessary. By pleading guilty to recklessness, the applicant admitted awareness of the risks and that he nevertheless deliberately continued to shine the laser at the helicopter. Further enquiry into whether the conduct was a deliberate and sustained attack was unnecessary for sentencing purposes.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Refused leave to appeal against the six-month sentence imposed for recklessly endangering an aircraft ([2009] EWCA Crim 2204).
• Southend Crown Court: Following a guilty plea, sentenced the applicant on 31 July 2009 to six months’ imprisonment.