Flying a drone on the Naul Road! but was not found by the jury to be intentional disruption?
>It was alleged that on January 24th, 2023, at Naul Road, Cloghran, Co Dublin, he unlawfully and intentionally interfered with the operation of air navigation facilities at Dublin Airport by operating a drone in the 300-metre critical area, such act being likely to interfere with the safety of aircraft.
>The case hinged on whether the prosecution could specifically prove that Mr. Brills intended to interfere with flights by flying his drone near the airport.
…..
>Mr Brills subsequently gave evidence telling the court that he never intended any such consequences and certainly did not foresee the closure of the airport as a “virtual certainty”.
Sounds like the law needs to be updated.
Reminds me of the plot points of the ‘The General’, where the armed robbery law at the time needed the victim to be in fear for their life.
sweetsuffrinjasus on
Represented by one of the best barristers in the country too.
slevinonion on
Legal system is fucked. Needs ripping up and starting again.
5 Comments
Flying a drone on the Naul Road! but was not found by the jury to be intentional disruption?
>It was alleged that on January 24th, 2023, at Naul Road, Cloghran, Co Dublin, he unlawfully and intentionally interfered with the operation of air navigation facilities at Dublin Airport by operating a drone in the 300-metre critical area, such act being likely to interfere with the safety of aircraft.
There is another man to be tried for Dublin airport drone disruption. [https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-airport-drone-flying-accused-challenge-prosecutions/a417555691.html](https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/dublin-airport-drone-flying-accused-challenge-prosecutions/a417555691.html)
This is why the jury system is bullshit
>The case hinged on whether the prosecution could specifically prove that Mr. Brills intended to interfere with flights by flying his drone near the airport.
…..
>Mr Brills subsequently gave evidence telling the court that he never intended any such consequences and certainly did not foresee the closure of the airport as a “virtual certainty”.
Sounds like the law needs to be updated.
Reminds me of the plot points of the ‘The General’, where the armed robbery law at the time needed the victim to be in fear for their life.
Represented by one of the best barristers in the country too.
Legal system is fucked. Needs ripping up and starting again.