ELOM:2023:018 | Drone flight above prison | North Holland

Decision in Aviation Case | 18-07-2023

PPS Decision

in the cases against two possible drone operators, referred to below as the underage suspect [A] and the adult suspect [B].

Reason for the investigation

The investigation was initiated following a report from [Name of prison], which had detected a drone over the complex. This report was filed on [date in year] 2022 at around 4.35am. 

Suspected offence

Violation of Article 6 Unmanned Aircraft Zoning Regulations (flight operations restriction as per Article 15 in conjunction with UAS.OPEN.060(2)(c) Regulation 2019/947).

Facts and circumstances

Based on the official report, it can be established that officers from the [region] police unit went to the prison in response to the report. Whilst on their way, they were told that the drone was still flying over the complex and that the drone's operator was believed to be near the address [address]. This is an address in the industrial area opposite the prison. Moments later, they heard that the drone had landed. The officers were at the scene at around 4.40am. They saw an almost empty road with an unmanned trailer in front of a truck and a car behind it.

In the passenger seat of that car was a man later identified as suspect [A]. Next to the car was a man identified as suspect [B]. On the back seat of the vehicle was a backpack, which was confiscated. Inside the backpack was a white drone.

The drone was not technically examined due to lack of resources. The suspect [A] denied any involvement. He said the drone did not belong to him, or to his friend. He had never seen it before and distanced himself from it when asked because it was not his drone. The suspect [B] invoked his right to remain silent.

Prison staff, who saw the drone flying, saw a protruding arm at front wall of one of the cells. Because it was dark, they could not clearly see from which cell the arm was protruding. Nor cold they see the drone properly. Several cells were searched. In one of the cells, it was found that a metal air vent had been sawed through, creating a small opening. A mobile phone with a charger was found in this cell. However, it could not be determined with certainty whether this phone with a charger had been delivered by the drone.

Decision

Although suspect [A] was found together with suspect [B] in the vicinity of the prison with a drone where a drone had been spotted shortly before, but the investigation has not been able to sufficiently demonstrate the link. The aviation prosecutor did not consider any further investigation of the drone because of the passage of time and the fact that the division of roles between the two suspects had not been clarified. Although an inspection of the drone may reveal that the drone flew there, it cannot reveal which suspect was the drone operator or whether it could be said that there was close and deliberate cooperation between the two suspects. Since aiding and abetting a violation is not a criminal offence, both suspects were given the benefit of the doubt.