Drone user given Community Protection Notice for flying drone in banned Leicester park

[Shiningmonk]

Why this man could be fined £2,500 for flying a drone

His drone could be destroyed if he breaches it

www.leicestermercury.co.uk

Councils are able to back up drone bans on council-owned land by serving a Community Protection Warning. This is a simple written warning not to fly a drone in a particular place. If that is not complied with, they can serve a Community Protection Notice under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. That is a legal notice which, if disobeyed, can result in a prosecution and a £2,500 fine for an individual (plus confiscation or destruction of the drone) if convicted.

A person served with such a Notice can appeal against the notice to a magistrates court within 21 days and the court can quash, modify or uphold the notice.

Note, a court order is not required to serve a notice., and the onus is on the person served with the notice to apply to the court to quash it. I assume that notices will advise of this right.

Anyone can also challenge a council policy banning drones by judicial review proceedings, though that can be expensive.

Wigston Borough Council in Leicester has introduced a blanket ban on recreational drones in all of its parks 24/7 even if nobody else is around, on the basis that, (1) local residents complained about feeling intimidated by drones, and (2) although most recreational drone users are responsible, a few are not and that can cause damage and injury.

I fear we will be seeing more and more bans by councils over the next few months and years, especially with compulsory recreational drone registration with the CAA being introduced in November.

As someone in the legal profession, I suspect that such a blanket and inflexible policy against recreational drone users (but not commercial operators, whose drones may equally cause local residents to feel intimidated) may be unlawful, but I wonder if there are any drone user organisations out there ready to challenge these policies.

 

[Liger 1956]

I am concerned about the "laws" being instigated by councils and private property owners to limit the use of "Drones". When I started doing fixed wing aerial photography last century, with an EasyStar and an Aiptek digital camera, people were genuinely interested in what I was doing and seeing the results. These days with all of the negative publicity and idots pitting dangerous flights on social media we have become a pariah and the cause of all that is wrong in society.
(rant over)

Although some of the local bylaws may be dubious I doubt whether anybody caught is willing to risk losing their hard earned cash, or home, to fund a legal challenge with the risk of losing and having to pay the councils legal fees. I hope that organisations such as the BMFA have looked at these bylaws with legal advice and taken the appropriate action but then pigs may fly!

 

[Thanev]

The City parks in my hometown in Canada have a no RC rule in place in case they need enforcement.Some individuals fly with no one around and educate the odd passerby .They tend to vacate the park as the public starts to utilize the Park.
The local city police will enforce when required,so MOST pilots try not to give them reason to.I think this is healthy,but alas, flying in such ares will become less and less acceptable due to both pilots who don't care and the public who are often mislead by the press.