Criminal Liability For Disrupting Aviation Safety By Drones
1. Gatwick Airport Drone Shutdown Case (UK, 2018)
Facts:
In December 2018, Gatwick Airport in the UK experienced multiple drone sightings near the runway, leading to a shutdown that affected 1,000 flights and stranded over 140,000 passengers.
Legal Issues:
The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and Air Navigation Order 2016 made it illegal to endanger aircraft by flying drones recklessly.
Determining criminal liability when drone operators are not immediately identified.
Decision:
Police launched a major investigation but initially struggled to identify suspects. While no immediate prosecution occurred, legislation allowed for heavy penalties for endangering aviation, including up to five years imprisonment.
Implication:
Established that reckless drone operations near airports can constitute serious criminal offences affecting aviation safety, even if no physical damage occurs.
2. Heathrow Airport Drone Interference Case (UK, 2019)
Facts:
A drone was spotted near Heathrow Airport, causing flights to be delayed. Authorities traced the drone to a private operator using social media evidence and CCTV.
Legal Issues:
Whether flying a drone near controlled airspace constitutes a criminal offence even without causing a collision.
Interpretation of “reckless endangerment” under the Air Navigation Order.
Decision:
The operator was charged and later convicted for endangering an aircraft and fined heavily. Criminal liability was affirmed, demonstrating that intent is not necessary—reckless behavior suffices.
Implication:
Confirmed that disruption itself, even without physical harm, is criminal under aviation safety laws.
3. Newark Liberty Airport Drone Interference Case (USA, 2015)
Facts:
In the U.S., a drone was spotted flying near Newark Liberty International Airport, triggering a temporary halt in aircraft takeoffs and landings.
Legal Issues:
Under 49 U.S.C. § 46307, it is unlawful to operate a drone in a way that interferes with manned aircraft.
Determining jurisdiction and criminal liability for unregistered drones.
Decision:
FBI and local police launched an investigation. Although the operator was not immediately caught, this incident prompted stricter FAA enforcement and criminal penalties, including fines and up to three years imprisonment for reckless operation.
Implication:
Showed the U.S. approach of combining federal aviation law and criminal law to address drone interference with aviation safety.
4. Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport Drone Interference (France, 2019)
Facts:
A drone was flown within the airport perimeter at Charles de Gaulle Airport, causing flight delays and temporary runway closure.
Legal Issues:
French Civil Aviation Code makes it a criminal offence to endanger aircraft.
Liability of the drone operator and potential penalties for “mise en danger de la vie d’autrui” (endangering others’ lives).
Decision:
The operator was identified and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. Authorities emphasized that drones in restricted airspace are treated with the same seriousness as interfering with manned aircraft.
Implication:
Established that criminal law, not just administrative penalties, applies to drone disruption of aviation.
5. Sydney Airport Drone Incident (Australia, 2020)
Facts:
A private drone was flown near Sydney Airport, prompting flight cancellations and emergency response.
Legal Issues:
Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) prohibits drones within 5.5 km of an airport without permission.
Criminal liability arises if a drone endangers aircraft or people.
Decision:
The drone operator was charged under CASA regulations and criminal law provisions for endangering life, resulting in fines and a custodial sentence.
Implication:
Highlighted that national laws explicitly criminalize disruption of aviation safety and that enforcement can include imprisonment.
6. Nepal Domestic Context – Tribhuvan Airport (Hypothetical/Reported Cases)
Facts:
There have been multiple reports of drones flown near Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, endangering aircraft and prompting warnings from Civil Aviation Authority of Nepal (CAAN).
Legal Issues:
Nepal’s Civil Aviation Act prohibits unauthorized drone flights near airports.
Potential application of criminal liability for endangering flights under general criminal law (Section 204, Criminal Code: endangering public safety).
Decision:
While no publicly reported criminal convictions have occurred yet, the legal framework allows prosecution for reckless drone operation that endangers aviation safety.
Implication:
Shows emerging need in Nepal to criminally enforce drone restrictions near airports.
Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Year | Location | Key Issue | Outcome | Implication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gatwick Airport | 2018 | UK | Drone near runway; flight disruption | Investigation; legislative framework for penalties | Disruption itself criminal; heavy fines/imprisonment |
| Heathrow Airport | 2019 | UK | Drone near controlled airspace | Conviction of operator; fine | Reckless behavior suffices for liability |
| Newark Liberty | 2015 | USA | Drone near airport | Federal investigation; legal provisions for criminal penalties | FAA + criminal law enforcement |
| Charles de Gaulle | 2019 | France | Drone interferes with runway | Conviction; imprisonment + fine | Criminal law applies to endangerment |
| Sydney Airport | 2020 | Australia | Drone near airport | Conviction; fines + custodial sentence | Explicit criminal liability under aviation safety law |
| Tribhuvan Airport | 2010s–2020s | Nepal | Drone near airport | No public convictions; warnings issued | Emerging need for criminal enforcement |
RELATED Blog
comments