Because he was taken on board in France. And since the aircraft never made it to the UK, he was charged with attempt (which carries the same penalty), as bookworm already said.
OMG, memo to Mr. Henderson: if you’re in a hole, stop digging.
Yes it is an astonishing story.
Of course, he may get acquitted. The Shoreham Hunter crash pilot was acquitted! If acquitted, he is by definition “not guilty”, and he can go off and sue various people.
Let’s see what happens…
having now pleaded guilty would preclude any aquittal, it looks more like a plea bargain to me, maybe to keep him out of jail. However, any guilty verdict will most probably end up with MASSIVE civil action against him, so maybe he would be better off in prison after all.
Here’s what I don’t get. Why do people continue to discuss dodgy deals via text messages? Even the dullest knife in he drawer should have figured out by now that that’s not the brightest idea.
You have no idea how duff people can be and regularly are.
I have no real figures of how many got themselves into holes quite literally costing them their lifes, but heavens if not many have talked or posted themselves into massive legal problems by boasting about stupidities they have done on social media…. text messages (who on earth uses them these days?) are just the beginning. All the police need to have all activities fully in the open is access to a persons smartphone, which will be the first thing they confiscate after an incident. All you have done recently is on there, they can track your movements and will know whoever you have interacted with and what was written on whatsapp, facebook, skype or what not before you know it.
Privacy went out with smartphones and computers.
What do you mean who on earth uses text messages these days?
My wife and I do, all the time. I’ve yet to find a better way of getting the plumber or electrician round. If you do, please tell.
The defendant had previously admitted a charge of attempting to discharge a passenger without valid permission or authorisation.
OK, just noticed that. They will bust him for that for sure; they always go for this one because these ops need an AOC and doing them without an AOC gives the CAA a load of hassle because AOC holders usually find out (because the passenger gets quotes from several agencies 
) and complain like hell to the CAA.
SMS messages are stored “for ever” in the GSM system, along with a load of data like SIM card ID, IMEI of both phones, signal levels (=approximate location), both numbers of course, etc. Most “older” people struggle with whatsapp or telegram and if their offspring doesn’t sort them out with a smartphone and installs all this, and keeps it running for them, they will just use SMS.
Going to jail doesn’t prevent you being asset-stripped.
I just wish they were doing this stuff in a G-reg. Doing it in an N-reg just brings N into disrepute. I spent ~1.5hrs talking to a BBC reporter, explaining all this stuff. Looking at the subsequent article, she still didn’t “get it”. Doing illegal charters in a G also makes it a lot less visible because loads of people (much of the maintenance business, most of the flight training business, all of the airport rumour-spreading-busybody scene) hate N and slag it off at every opportunity.
Interesting that a representative from the N-reg trust, Fay Keely, was in the court also.
This is interesting too:
The court heard the plane was purchased in August 2015 by Southern Aircraft Consultancy Inc, a company that specialises in organising the ownership of aircraft into trusts.
The trust was Cool Flourish Ltd, a family company of which Ms Keely was the director and secretary.
Mr Goudie said Ms Keely says she would pay the bills but Henderson dealt with the day-to-day management of the plane.
“This included organising of the maintenance, hiring out the aircraft and selecting pilots to fly it,” Mr Goudie said.
“On the basis of invoices she received she thinks the aircraft was hired out by Mr Henderson on 34 occasions between October 2015 and January 2019.”
Was this plane under SAC, or not? If SAC was the trustee, Cool Flourish Ltd was the beneficial owner, not a “trust”. These reporters write such bollocks. They are clueless…
bookworm wrote:
ANO 2016
Restriction on carriage, where valuable consideration is given or promised, in aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom
250.—(1) Unless paragraph (2) or (6) applies, an aircraft registered elsewhere than in the United Kingdom must not take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the United Kingdom where valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of such persons or cargo.
(2) This paragraph applies if—
the operator or charterer of the aircraft or the Government of the country in which the aircraft is registered has been granted permission to take on board or discharge any passengers or cargo in the circumstances described in paragraph (1) by—
the Secretary of State; or
the CAA; and
any conditions, to which such permission may be subject, are satisfied.
That’s not really the AOC requirement, is it? It looks more like a rule intended to require non-UK airlines to have a permit to fly to the UK. If the prosecution had to dig up that rule, they have to be desperate.
