Which countries laws are applicable to passenger conduct on board flights

[Cloud Strife]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/covid-restrictions-abroad-updates-observations.215886/

Are you saying ground laws apply? Do you have a source for this?

It's basically a confusing mess. The Tokyo Convention theoretically regulates it, but in practice, what happens is that people on board aircraft are usually subject to multiple laws, except when the plane is in international airspace where the country of registration matters. So in this case, English law applied (as the country of registration), but Canadian law (as the plane was in Canadian territory) also applied. It's why, for instance, a drunk Brit kicking off somewhere above France on his booze-filled holiday to Spain will be prosecuted under French law.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4329667/boozed-up-brit-ryanair-ibiza-flight-bordeaux-french-police/ for example, or https://news.stv.tv/world/six-footb...r-diversion-to-france-over-disruptive-conduct

Pilots diverted the plane to Bordeaux in the south of France where officers were waiting to arrest the rowdy flyers.

from The Sun article

Authorities met five people on the tarmac at Nantes Atlantique airport after the Manchester to Faro service – containing mainly Rangers supporters – was brought into land when crew members raised concerns over the conduct of a “small group” of passengers.

from the STV article.

However, also in practice, the destination country also matters, as it's their police that would have to enforce the law. If the flight was going to England, the relevant police force weren't going to prosecute someone for something that wasn't a criminal offence in England. It would take a very brave captain to divert a plane for someone breaking the mask laws onboard!

I suspect the captain was quoting from the Tokyo Convention in regards to the doors being closed.

If you think about Lockerbie as a prime example: the crime was committed in Scottish airspace, and was therefore subject to Scottish law. The trial could theoretically have been under US law too, but there's obviously no way that Libya would have agreed to that.

 

[35B]

If you think about Lockerbie as a prime example: the crime was committed in Scottish airspace, and was therefore subject to Scottish law. The trial could theoretically have been under US law too, but there's obviously no way that Libya would have agreed to that.

I'd be careful about citing Lockerbie in that way, as my understanding is that Scottish jurisdiction kicked in not because of where the bomb went off but because of the locations of the main crash sites.