I don't believe he has been punished yet. "Medida de coerci?n" ("coercive measure") means that a judge has deemed the case to be serious enough to be brought to trial at a later date, and has authorized the public prosecutor to take measures to "coerce" the accused to go to trial. It is like some kind of bail. Conceivably, the accused could have been put in jail while awaiting trial (for example, because he might have been deemed a “flight risk”) without the possibility of bail, but instead he has been allowed to wait for the trial at home, on the condition that he periodically show up to see some kind of officer, as indicated. It is similar to the so-called "parole" (if you know what that is) but this is done before the trial.
- Thread starter dv8
- Start date
norwegian guy attacks a dominican on a flight to POP
- Status
He turned up for his return flight on Thursday and was denied at check-in by Condor. It would have been interesting to see if he had actually checked in and got as far as immigration and refused exit by the authorities.
He is gong to learn a very expensive lesson. Don't get violent on an aircraft. Airlines take a really dim view on this and have the right to enforce a zero tolerance policy. He will now be on a no-fly blacklist with Condor and many other airlines share this information.
He is gong to learn a very expensive lesson. Don't get violent on an aircraft. Airlines take a really dim view on this and have the right to enforce a zero tolerance policy. He will now be on a no-fly blacklist with Condor and many other airlines share this information.
Unless the DR has a specific law against rage on board aircraft (only a handful of countries do), he cannot be actually tried and sentenced in the DR. He might have a way to get out of this the "easy way". Let me see if I can pull up that article, I just read about it a few days ago.
I cannot find the article quickly, but will try later on. Basically it deals with the fact that under Tokyo Convention (still in effect) it's the "registration country of the aircraft" that has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board. So the Norwegian would actually need to be extradited to Germany to be prosecuted.
Actually had Condor allowed him check in, upon arrival to Germany he could have been arrested and prosecuted there. Condor actually messed up here
The destination country generally lacks the jurisdiction for prosecution. Some countries such as USA and UK have specific laws that address the vacuum, where their laws specifically claim jurisdiction for inbound flights.
Actually had Condor allowed him check in, upon arrival to Germany he could have been arrested and prosecuted there. Condor actually messed up here
The destination country generally lacks the jurisdiction for prosecution. Some countries such as USA and UK have specific laws that address the vacuum, where their laws specifically claim jurisdiction for inbound flights.
I cannot find the article quickly, but will try later on. Basically it deals with the fact that under Tokyo Convention (still in effect) it's the "registration country of the aircraft" that has exclusive jurisdiction over crimes committed on board. So the Norwegian would actually need to be extradited to Germany to be prosecuted.
Actually had Condor allowed him check in, upon arrival to Germany he could have been arrested and prosecuted there. Condor actually messed up here
The destination country generally lacks the jurisdiction for prosecution. Some countries such as USA and UK have specific laws that address the vacuum, where their laws specifically claim jurisdiction for inbound flights.
Interesting. Although the flight was bound for ARN, Stockholm. So how would that have worked, a German airline sub chartered for a Swedish tour operator?
Remember the Cdn couple - returning to Halifax?
He lit a cigarette....
they landed in Bermuda to drop him off and he was charged later.
Including payment for the landing / take-off.
It was reported here - DR1
They get serious up there - in flight
He lit a cigarette....
they landed in Bermuda to drop him off and he was charged later.
Including payment for the landing / take-off.
It was reported here - DR1
They get serious up there - in flight
The new Montreal convention is not yet in place. I THINK Bermuda is under UK jurisdiction and UK has some specific laws to combat this type of actions
Well, the newspaper report indicated that the public prosecutor based his case on "art?culo 3, numeral 56 y los art?culos 50 y 81 de la Ley No. 188-11 sobre Seguridad Aeroportuaria y de la Aviaci?n Civil" (arts. 3-56, 50 and 81 of Law 188-11 about Airport and Civil Aviation Safety).
I haven't checked the articles they are referring to, but it does seem the case is based on an existing law (from 2011, BTW).
I suppose it makes a difference whether the plane was over national territory when the events occurred. And if the individual kept on struggling with the crew until landing then he OBVIOUSLY was in national territory when at least a portion of the offense occurred.
(3)(56) Pasajero perturbador: Un pasajero que no respeta las normas de conducta en un aeropuerto o a bordo de una aeronave o que no respeta las instrucciones del personal de aeropuerto o de los miembros de la tripulaci?n y por consiguiente, perturba el orden y la disciplina en el aeropuerto o a bordo de la aeronave.
Art?culo 50.- Acciones por crimen o delito en vuelo. Si durante un vuelo se cometiese alg?n crimen o delito, el comandante de la aeronave debe tomar las medidas necesarias para asegurar que el autor del hecho sea puesto a disposici?n de la autoridad competente del lugar del primer aterrizaje en el territorio nacional, debiendo levantar un acta o informe, con una relaci?n detallada de los hechos, autores, v?ctimas y dem?s elementos probatorios para ser entregada al CESAC, a los fines de que ?ste la remita a la autoridad judicial competente.
P?rrafo.- El acta debe ser firmada por el comandante y de ser posible, por uno o m?s testigos. Bajo estas formalidades puede ser incorporada al juicio por su lectura, sin perjuicio de que el comandante y el testigo puedan ser citados para prestar su testimonio.
Art?culo 81.- Pena por el no respeto a las instrucciones del personal de seguridad aeroportuaria o del comandante de la aeronave. Cualquier persona que no respete las instrucciones del personal de seguridad aeroportuaria o del comandante de la aeronave, perturbando el orden y disciplina en el aeropuerto o a bordo de la aeronave, o interfiriendo en su desempe?o o disminuyendo su capacidad para realizar sus deberes, es sancionado con la pena de 6 meses a 2 a?os de prisi?n correccional o multa de hasta 50 salarios m?nimos.
Art?culo 50.- Acciones por crimen o delito en vuelo. Si durante un vuelo se cometiese alg?n crimen o delito, el comandante de la aeronave debe tomar las medidas necesarias para asegurar que el autor del hecho sea puesto a disposici?n de la autoridad competente del lugar del primer aterrizaje en el territorio nacional, debiendo levantar un acta o informe, con una relaci?n detallada de los hechos, autores, v?ctimas y dem?s elementos probatorios para ser entregada al CESAC, a los fines de que ?ste la remita a la autoridad judicial competente.
P?rrafo.- El acta debe ser firmada por el comandante y de ser posible, por uno o m?s testigos. Bajo estas formalidades puede ser incorporada al juicio por su lectura, sin perjuicio de que el comandante y el testigo puedan ser citados para prestar su testimonio.
Art?culo 81.- Pena por el no respeto a las instrucciones del personal de seguridad aeroportuaria o del comandante de la aeronave. Cualquier persona que no respete las instrucciones del personal de seguridad aeroportuaria o del comandante de la aeronave, perturbando el orden y disciplina en el aeropuerto o a bordo de la aeronave, o interfiriendo en su desempe?o o disminuyendo su capacidad para realizar sus deberes, es sancionado con la pena de 6 meses a 2 a?os de prisi?n correccional o multa de hasta 50 salarios m?nimos.
About jurisdiction:
Art?culo 4.- Jurisdicci?n. Quedan sometidos a la jurisdicci?n dominicana:
3) Los actos de interferencia il?cita ejecutados o cualquier violaci?n a los tratados y convenios internacionales ratificados por el Estado dominicano, leyes, reglamentos y programas que regulen la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, cometidos a bordo de aeronaves extranjeras que vuelen sobre territorio dominicano o se encuentren estacionadas en ?l, cuando tales actos o faltas interesen o incidan en la seguridad o el orden p?blico de la Rep?blica Dominicana o cuando se produzcan o se pretenda que tengan efecto en el territorio nacional.
4) Cuando se trate de un acto de interferencia il?cita o cualquier violaci?n a los tratados y convenios internacionales ratificados por el Congreso, leyes, reglamentos y programas que regulen la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, cometidos durante un vuelo de una aeronave extranjera, se aplicar?n las leyes dominicanas si se realiza en la Rep?blica Dominicana el primer aterrizaje posterior a la comisi?n del delito.
If the events did not occur in the Dominican airspace, then Sub Article 3 would not apply. If it was in DR airspace, there would be a jurisdiction of DR.
About subarticle 4, then OK the prosecutor could claim jurisdiction based on foreign aircraft having the first landing in the DR, "cometidos durante un vuelo de una aeronave extranjera, se aplicar?n las leyes dominicanas si se realiza en la Rep?blica Dominicana el primer aterrizaje posterior a la comisi?n del delito" but if I was the defense lawayer I would argue that it's fine that if we apply this subarticle, the FOREIGN TREATIES RATIFIED BY CONGRESS BE APPLIED, so we must apply treaty bound by coungress, but the current biding treaty is the very Tokyo convention mentioned above (though if the defense is some me-too-lawyer, he may not even know about existence of some Tokyo Convention).
Then aso we have Subarticle 5:
Art?culo 5.- Aplicaci?n del Derecho Internacional.
Los actos de interferencia il?cita y otros actos que atenten contra la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, que involucren aeronaves de Estado, de Estados extranjeros, quedan sometidos a las normas aplicables del derecho internacional.
Again...this would be leaning towards Tokyo Convention.
So all will be depending now on whether the acts were committed in/over the Dominican airspace and whether his lawyer is decent and makes use of the Tokyo Convention... then, He walks...
And about DR airspace... the incident would need have to take place less than 30 minutes before landing for this to be in the DR airspace .. I do not know how far the country's airspace extends, but I assume it is not farther than 400 kms from the borders of DR's landmass (which would be the last 30 minutes of flight, more or less).
Also the articles of the law state that the captain must make a written statement to CESAC along with witnesses, for him not to be required to testify at trial. Has he done that? We do not know. Possibility is, he has, or he has not. 50/50 chance. If he had not, he would need to show up at trial (good luck at that, that's how traffic tickets get shot down in court in the U.S.).
In any case, with half-decent lawyer, I believe the Norwegian will walk ... My bets would be 80% thanks to lack of jurisdiction cause, 20% thanks to no statement/testimony of captain.
Art?culo 4.- Jurisdicci?n. Quedan sometidos a la jurisdicci?n dominicana:
3) Los actos de interferencia il?cita ejecutados o cualquier violaci?n a los tratados y convenios internacionales ratificados por el Estado dominicano, leyes, reglamentos y programas que regulen la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, cometidos a bordo de aeronaves extranjeras que vuelen sobre territorio dominicano o se encuentren estacionadas en ?l, cuando tales actos o faltas interesen o incidan en la seguridad o el orden p?blico de la Rep?blica Dominicana o cuando se produzcan o se pretenda que tengan efecto en el territorio nacional.
4) Cuando se trate de un acto de interferencia il?cita o cualquier violaci?n a los tratados y convenios internacionales ratificados por el Congreso, leyes, reglamentos y programas que regulen la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, cometidos durante un vuelo de una aeronave extranjera, se aplicar?n las leyes dominicanas si se realiza en la Rep?blica Dominicana el primer aterrizaje posterior a la comisi?n del delito.
If the events did not occur in the Dominican airspace, then Sub Article 3 would not apply. If it was in DR airspace, there would be a jurisdiction of DR.
About subarticle 4, then OK the prosecutor could claim jurisdiction based on foreign aircraft having the first landing in the DR, "cometidos durante un vuelo de una aeronave extranjera, se aplicar?n las leyes dominicanas si se realiza en la Rep?blica Dominicana el primer aterrizaje posterior a la comisi?n del delito" but if I was the defense lawayer I would argue that it's fine that if we apply this subarticle, the FOREIGN TREATIES RATIFIED BY CONGRESS BE APPLIED, so we must apply treaty bound by coungress, but the current biding treaty is the very Tokyo convention mentioned above (though if the defense is some me-too-lawyer, he may not even know about existence of some Tokyo Convention).
Then aso we have Subarticle 5:
Art?culo 5.- Aplicaci?n del Derecho Internacional.
Los actos de interferencia il?cita y otros actos que atenten contra la seguridad de la aviaci?n civil, que involucren aeronaves de Estado, de Estados extranjeros, quedan sometidos a las normas aplicables del derecho internacional.
Again...this would be leaning towards Tokyo Convention.
So all will be depending now on whether the acts were committed in/over the Dominican airspace and whether his lawyer is decent and makes use of the Tokyo Convention... then, He walks...
And about DR airspace... the incident would need have to take place less than 30 minutes before landing for this to be in the DR airspace .. I do not know how far the country's airspace extends, but I assume it is not farther than 400 kms from the borders of DR's landmass (which would be the last 30 minutes of flight, more or less).
Also the articles of the law state that the captain must make a written statement to CESAC along with witnesses, for him not to be required to testify at trial. Has he done that? We do not know. Possibility is, he has, or he has not. 50/50 chance. If he had not, he would need to show up at trial (good luck at that, that's how traffic tickets get shot down in court in the U.S.).
In any case, with half-decent lawyer, I believe the Norwegian will walk ... My bets would be 80% thanks to lack of jurisdiction cause, 20% thanks to no statement/testimony of captain.
Last edited:
As I already indicated, if the individual kept struggling with the crew until landing then the event ended not only in Dominican airspace but in Dominican territory when landing occurred (even if it started outside Dominican airspace).
I imagine that Condor does train their crews to handle similar incidents including handling legal aspects. Anyhow, I see no reason why the captain couldn't go to court (assuming without any evidence that he didn't gave the statement he was supposed to). Condor operates numerous flights to/from the DR. It shouldn't be to difficult for them to schedule the captain so that he is in the DR the day of the trial.
You know trials in the DR love to get "postponed" or transferred to another date, right? Would that captain be so willing to come in every time the trial is scheduled? Anyway, the article had no indication whether the Norwegian kept struggling or not after he was restrained... the even may have happened mid-flight over Atlantic and he may had been restrained ever since... nobody knows, I don't, you don't either, articles do not state. My bet is on he will walk...sooner rather than later.
You can speculate all you want about what did happen and what will happen.
I explained already that a JUDGE reviewed the case and the arguments given by the public prosecutor and the JUDGE RULED that the case was sufficiently well-founded to merit "coercive measures" and a full trial. Both the prosecutors and the judge are Dominican lawyers, but if you consider yourself better positioned to know Dominican law than they do you must have your reasons to feel that way. You are entitled to believe whatever you want.
Since this sort of laws are meant TO PROTECT airlines and their employees from troublesome passengers, it seems safe to assume that the Airlines will do the utmost to cooperate with authorities in such cases. If you know better, you must have your reasons.
I know the Captain, in fact he's a friend of mine. We have worked together for some fifteen years.
The incident happened mid Atlantic. This guy was boozing quite heavily and started getting abusive. His seat was in the very last row at the rear of the aircraft. Some of his fellow passengers asked him to calm down. The cabin crew were busy doing their service at the time. It's their job to try and placate boisterous passengers, but at this time they were forward of the cabin.
He then attacked one of the passengers who was telling him to calm down. The crew noticed the fracas and restrained him with the restraint kit. A pair of handcuffs and a strap to strap him into his seat. Apparently he spent five hours like that.
The Captain will not make an accusation in court. It will either be the airline representing him, or the passenger who was attacked has the right to press charges against him too. As the Captain said to me, this guy did not physically attack any of his crew or cause any damage to the aircraft, which is where his jurisdiction lies.
The incident happened mid Atlantic. This guy was boozing quite heavily and started getting abusive. His seat was in the very last row at the rear of the aircraft. Some of his fellow passengers asked him to calm down. The cabin crew were busy doing their service at the time. It's their job to try and placate boisterous passengers, but at this time they were forward of the cabin.
He then attacked one of the passengers who was telling him to calm down. The crew noticed the fracas and restrained him with the restraint kit. A pair of handcuffs and a strap to strap him into his seat. Apparently he spent five hours like that.
The Captain will not make an accusation in court. It will either be the airline representing him, or the passenger who was attacked has the right to press charges against him too. As the Captain said to me, this guy did not physically attack any of his crew or cause any damage to the aircraft, which is where his jurisdiction lies.
I don't think anyone has suggested that the captain himself should or would press charges. The comment was that the law requires a formal written report by the captain and possibly witnesses about the incident. It was speculated that perhaps he didn't do it, and that he would end up having to go to court (presumably for that reason). I would guess that an airline like Condor has trained its employees on handling matters like this, and the ground personnel could have helped after landing. Probably the company has secured the services of people trained in Dominican law (whether as regular employees of its legal department, or as contractors).
Anyhow, damage to the aircraft or crew has not been alleged. The issued mentioned are : disruptive passenger, including failure to obey the crew instructions (this is obvious since he had to be restrained), and the assault of a passenger.
I suppose that if he was indeed drunk the airline may be at fault for selling him enough liquor to get intoxicated (and/or allowing him to get in the plane in such state).
Mirgo, mijito, if matters happened as Beeza wrote, then there is no Dominican jurisdiction. Incompetent lawyer or incompetent judge, MdeC most likely to be overturn on appeal. I am not a lawyer but I took several law courses (Uni), so it is quite likely I know more about the law than you do. Plus I know a lot of lawyers and how things are done, first hearing is almost never done according to the rules of procedure as we are accustomed to in the "western world" in spite of law saying one thing. these judges that do MdeC are not the same ones that handle the case later on. They are the "first appearance judges", then motions, amparos and appeals follow.
Anyway, about a written statement to CESAC by the captain, it is what the law states, either provide written statement to CESAC signed by captain and witness(es) or appear in court. It is not the same as a report to the airline or who-knows-what. The law is specific about it.
I went into trouble to read the law, the link you posted, so do yourself a favor and read it as well before discussing it with me.
Anyway, about a written statement to CESAC by the captain, it is what the law states, either provide written statement to CESAC signed by captain and witness(es) or appear in court. It is not the same as a report to the airline or who-knows-what. The law is specific about it.
I went into trouble to read the law, the link you posted, so do yourself a favor and read it as well before discussing it with me.
- Status