Airmen Found Not Guilty Of Taking Plane

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30288, 14 November 1963, Page 30

Airmen Found Not Guilty Of Taking Plane

(New Zealand Press Association) BLENHEIM, November 13. After a retirement of two hours and a half a jury in the Supreme Court this afternoon found two serving airmen not guilty on a joint charge of unlawfully taking a Piper 18 aircraft, valued at £2OO, the property of the Marlborough Aero Club.

It found one of the two, Barry Winetone Dorr, guilty on two other charges of which he was alone charged, of committing on act likely to imperil the safety of the aircraft and its passenger, and of flying the aircraft while not the holder of a pilot’s licence. Dorr and Brian Arthur Holes, both aged 21, of the R.N.ZJtF station, Woodbourne, both pleaded not guilty and were represented by Mr A. G. Wicks. The Crown proeecutor, Mr F. G. Paterson, prosecuted. Mr Justice Tompkins discharged Holes and remanded Dorr until Friday morning for sentence. Bail was allowed. The charges arose from the flight of the Piper aircraft from Woodbourne in the early hours of August 31. The aircraft had been parked at the air force station the previous night after authorised night flying activities by aero club members. In his address to the jury, Mr Paterson said under no stretch of the imagination did either of the two men have colour of right or authority to take the aircraft in which they had made a flight Dorr had rejoined the Marlborough Aero Club about a fortnight before the incident, but club officers had said that as a member he had no right to take the machine. Neither had he at the time a licence to fly it or take a passenger. Holes made three statements in which Mr Paterson submitted he admitted assisting to remove the aircraft and “knew what he was about" If they considered they had

some right to use the plane, said Mr Paterson, one would have thought they wouM have done something about it the next day, but it was three days later, when approached by the police, that they had made statements. Both the accused could feel very thankful that no damage had occurred as a result of the flight, which Mr Paterson submitted, bed been made at very considerable risk and therefore was an ant likely to imperil the safety at both the aircraft and its occupants. For the accused, Mr Wicks said be could find no real defence flor flying without a licence. It was akin to failing to renew a driver's licence. The charges boiled down to the fact of flying when Woodbourne's lights were turned off. The plane was landed safely. It was a moonlight night and both occupants had said they could see what they were doing and “felt-quite safe.” Careful Procedure Mir Wicks said that Dorr’s cockpit checks had shown he had followed the right and careful procedure in handling the aircraft. He submitted that the same caution would have continued throughout the short 15-minute flight. Referring to the joint charge of unlawfully taking the plane, Mir Wicks said there was no dispute that Doer took the plane but the Crown had to prove he took it unlawfully and without colour of right. Hie Crown held that because Dorr took the plane without authority it was unlawful It was against the club rules but it was not a

crime to, uidmted by statute apt tttoxttd be treated by ths-etab in its own way. Mcfita w atoo Justified in thitofiag ttet Dose, as a menhir of the aero dub, wm titoSid to tote toe atacraft. On toe question of whether toe_Wento westakenunBmvAbHbT Cir wfthttA colour of sltoi, Ito Honour said the wMhtae wee owned by toe ttak- it tod wflTted toe right to toe 3bSuch use was governed Kanea dcf mx iHWwtrs. Be Honour add that toe act cd taapeetotag an aircraft wee Her end beyond staxpßy flying toe aircraft and wee something outside norapei’ use of toe ptane. The jury retired at 1280 pen.