LATEST: DAVID HENDERSON FLIGHT TRIAL

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

Having done jury service twice I have to agree there is nothing like being in court and hearing and seeing everything that goes on. Henderson has tried on two occasions to deflect blame onto others, Ibbotson as the pilot in charge and yesterday he pointed the finger at Willy McKay, or at least he defence barrister did. But for me it was nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters. It is an uncontested fact that McKay requested the flight and did ask Henderson to arrange another pilot when he found out Henderson was not available, but that decision was on Henderson alone.

Sometime today it will be over to the jury and I hope for ES and his family justice is done here.

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

Having done jury service twice I have to agree there is nothing like being in court and hearing and seeing everything that goes on. Henderson has tried on two occasions to deflect blame onto others, Ibbotson as the pilot in charge and yesterday he pointed the finger at Willy McKay, or at least he defence barrister did. But for me it was nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters. It is an uncontested fact that McKay requested the flight and did ask Henderson to arrange another pilot when he found out Henderson was not available, but that decision was on Henderson alone.

Sometime today it will be over to the jury and I hope for ES and his family justice is done here.

On idea on the timings?

Meet early this morning here the closing arguments go off and make a decision?

They should have a verdict by lunchtime?

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

Having done jury service twice I have to agree there is nothing like being in court and hearing and seeing everything that goes on. Henderson has tried on two occasions to deflect blame onto others, Ibbotson as the pilot in charge and yesterday he pointed the finger at Willy McKay, or at least he defence barrister did. But for me it was nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters. It is an uncontested fact that McKay requested the flight and did ask Henderson to arrange another pilot when he found out Henderson was not available, but that decision was on Henderson alone.

Sometime today it will be over to the jury and I hope for ES and his family justice is done here.

On idea on the timings?

Meet early this morning here the closing arguments go off and make a decision?

They should have a verdict by lunchtime?

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a verdict today.

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

Having done jury service twice I have to agree there is nothing like being in court and hearing and seeing everything that goes on. Henderson has tried on two occasions to deflect blame onto others, Ibbotson as the pilot in charge and yesterday he pointed the finger at Willy McKay, or at least he defence barrister did. But for me it was nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters. It is an uncontested fact that McKay requested the flight and did ask Henderson to arrange another pilot when he found out Henderson was not available, but that decision was on Henderson alone.

Sometime today it will be over to the jury and I hope for ES and his family justice is done here.

On idea on the timings?

Meet early this morning here the closing arguments go off and make a decision?

They should have a verdict by lunchtime?

Final statements would take a hour I think and they are not back in court yet. I've been on jury service for 4 trials and in my experience even things you think are clear cut some people see it differently. But this one I'd be surprised if it took more than a few hours to talk through. This afternoon for verdict I think.

From the outside looking in, it appears pretty damning on David Henderson

He has consistently avoided answers and appears to be using deflection tactics as his main defence

Of course, we don't have the same access to information that the jury does, so there may be a twist to come; but it doesn't look good, does it?

Having done jury service twice I have to agree there is nothing like being in court and hearing and seeing everything that goes on. Henderson has tried on two occasions to deflect blame onto others, Ibbotson as the pilot in charge and yesterday he pointed the finger at Willy McKay, or at least he defence barrister did. But for me it was nothing more than an attempt to muddy the waters. It is an uncontested fact that McKay requested the flight and did ask Henderson to arrange another pilot when he found out Henderson was not available, but that decision was on Henderson alone.

Sometime today it will be over to the jury and I hope for ES and his family justice is done here.

On idea on the timings?

Meet early this morning here the closing arguments go off and make a decision?

They should have a verdict by lunchtime?

Final statements would take a hour I think and they are not back in court yet. I've been on jury service for 4 trials and in my experience even things you think are clear cut some people see it differently. But this one I'd be surprised if it took more than a few hours to talk through. This afternoon for verdict I think.

Nice one looks clear cut to me

The judges direction to the jury looks quite simple.


As guilty as sin in my opinion.

My only concern is that it looks so cut and dried that there must be something I'm missing that has made him plead not guilty !

Prosecution Starts their closing statement:

Mr Goudie said: “The prosecution’s case is Mr Henderson organised and operated these two flights where the plane was not authorised and the pilot was not qualified, a significant number of rules.

“There numerous breaches of the regulations need to be considered in context; aviation safety, flights across the Channel in winter, a culture of breaching regulations by Mr Henderson, a failure to conduct the most basic checks and keep the most basic records of his pilots, and a failure to conduct any risk assessment of any substance.

“The prosecution say your starting point is what are the regulations and were they breached?…

“The paperwork and licensing issues we are looking at go to how the aircrafts was operated and the qualifications of the pilots. These are not peripheral issues.

“Mr Ibbotson was not qualified to conduct these flights. Breach after breach after breach, all know about and encouraged by Mr Henderson. The approach to them is one of risk taking, not risk assessment.

“You might think a pilot not being qualified is absolutely essential to risk involved in that.

"Mr Goudie goes on to refer to the running of Henderson’s aircraft management.

He said: “We also say we are not considering a perfectly run operation, we are not dealing with the best operation running at this level. We say what’s going on is way down here.

“This is not an act where David Ibbotson was not qualified but Mr Henderson had the rest of the operation in place and it failed, this was an incompetent, undocumented, risk creating and dishonest organisation. The longer they operated the more risks were taken and the worse it got.”

Mr Goudie turns to the safety requirements

He said: “When considering the breaches we are looking at here, we need to look at the context considering aviation safety, flights across the English Channel in winter, a single engine plane and an unqualified pilot…

“The CAA is not going out on a limb and being overcautious. These are worldwide regulations put in place for aviation safety and they are Henderson 'seeks to blame everything on Mr Ibbotson. They are there specifically for safety .”[/b]

The prosecutor now turns to who was the operator of the flights.

He said: “Mr Henderson has now accepted he’s the operator of the flights but you may think it’s an acceptance through gritted teeth…

“He has sought to distance himself from the reality and the truth in taking responsibility. He does that knowing full well he was the person who put Mr Ibbotson in that pilot seat knowing he wasn’t qualified and was willing to break rules because of the example Mr Henderson has set and was doing that while working for Mr Henderson.

“That’s the environment he created and the environment in which he undertook those flights in January.

“He seeks to blame everything on Mr Ibbotson on whether the flights took place or not but Mr Henderson was the person who controlled the aircraft and was the operator of that aircraft. If he did not want the flights to take place because he had an unqualified pilot, he was the one person in that position to prevent it. Business came first.

“You will remember from Mr Henderson’s prepared statement, he set out: ‘I did not have any discussion with Mr (Willie) McKay about financial arrangements’. That was a lie in June 2020, and it was a lie when he stood by it when giving evidence.

“It’s a lie to distance himself from the responsibility of these flights.

“As the messages show, within a few minutes of agreeing to the flights, Mr Henderson is asking for payment. There’s no response to it so the first message on January 19 is asking for £4,000 to be transferred and gives him his account details. None of this is a surprise or novel, you see regular contact between Mr Henderson and Mr McKay.”/b]

WOW Henderson caught in a lie about no discussion of money for the flight.

Number of particulars' in the case
Mr Goudie asks the jury to consider a “number of particulars” in the case.

He said: “The first particular is the flights did not have certificates of authorisation, namely the Foreign Carrier Permit (FCP), and it did not have a Air Operator Certificate (AOC) which is required to obtain a FCP.

“(Henderson) knew full well Mr Ibbotson was not qualified and he encouraged him to breach the Air Navigation Order (ANO). He had no paperwork or next of kin details. Mr Ibbotson was the only Private Pilot Licence (PPL) pilot he had. He didn’t know his pilots’ licence details but he was the one who put them in that aircraft.”

He added: “(Henderson) properly conducted maintenance of the aircraft, we don’t say he wanted the aircraft to crash, but he cut corners to assist his business and he created risk.”

Second particular
Mr Goudie refers to the second particular. He said: “You have to consider the lack of a commercial pilot’s licence.

“Mr Ibbotson did not have one and one was required to conduct the flights in January 2019. You need to go on to consider whether risk is created by Mr Ibbotson not having a commercial pilots licence.”

He added: “The change of the night time flight was not questioned by the pilot of the operator because it was important to the passenger.”


Third particular
Mr Goudie turns to the third particular. He said: “You must consider the expiring of the rating. Mr Ibbotson should not have been flying that plane.

“This was not a minor oversight by Mr Henderson or Mr Ibbotson. The rating had expired seven weeks earlier and there is no evidence to suggest Mr Ibbotson was doing anything about it. It’s no surprise considering the culture of the company he was flying with at the time.”



And the fourth
Mr Goudie refers to the fourth particular.

He said: “You need to be sure of the circumstances of the return flight and Mr Ibbotson was not competent to conduct that flight.

“You’ll need to consider Mr Henderson’s explanation about the weather and his credibility on that issues]. When considering Mr Ibbotson’s competence to fly in bad weather you have the texts on the day to show a lack of confidence from Mr Henderson in him.”

What he did was not an accident'

Mr Goudie refers to the route to verdict, in which the jury were asked to consider whether Henderson had acted “recklessly or negligently”.

He said: “Was Mr Henderson new to aviation? No he wasn’t.

“Did Mr Henderson’s business model change shortly before? No.

“Was Mr Ibbotson a new pilot Mr Henderson had to use at the last moment? No.
“Was there a request for a flight in January 2019 that was unexpected? No, this was a regular occurrence.”

He added: “What he did was not an accident, what he did here was deliberate and reckless…

“(Henderson) tries to minimise his involvement and responsibility. This is classic Mr Henderson. He knew full well (Mr Ibbotson) did not have a night rating at that time.

“He has the opportunity to say to the customer and the passenger ‘We can’t do this return flight at this time because the pilot is not qualified to fly at night. Can we try and move the flight back to the afternoon or can I organise something else’.

“He does not tell the customer or the passenger the situation with the pilot because it’s not in his business interests to do so. There’s a complete avoidance of the regulations.

You can be sure of Mr Henderson’s guilt'

Concluding his speech, Mr Gouie said: “You can see all of the particulars on the indictment are proved.

“When you consider the breaches individually and communally you can be sure of Mr Henderson’s guilt on this indictment.”

The prosecution has completed its closing speech.

That's the end of the prosecution closing statement.

Closing speech from the defence


Defence barrister Stephen Spence begins his closing speech.

He said: “When the prosecution read out their opening, they try and persuade you to think ill of the defendant, to come away from the opening and think he might be guilty. What possible explanation can he have and what possible defence can he have. That occurs before you have heard a single word of evidence. What you have to hear is to look at the evidence.”

Mr Spence said the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) would legislate against something that would endanger an aircraft.

He said: “If there was a circumstance where something did arise that was dangerous, they would legislate against it. Sometimes someone is killed before they realise legislation is required. Where does the baseline lie?

“If you’re a wealthy person you can buy your own jumbo jet and you can carry family, friends, staff and clients, providing they are not paying customers. You can do that without an Air Operator Certificate (AOC).

“It’s legal and you must be safe for you to carry a passenger, if it wasn’t the regulator would legislate against it.

“While the AOC is a magic that allows you to charge people, it has very little to do with danger or no danger.

“To quote Orwell, it’s not a case of AOC good, no AOC bad. Where does the baseline fall?”

The safety regulator allowed this aircraft to fly'

Mr Spence said the same argument could be applied to the pilot’s licence.

He said: “Private planes are entitled to carry passengers. When you come down to commercial licences, you’re talking about payment, we’re not talking about pilot’s’ behaviour. If we were, every aircraft would require an AOC. We invite you to bear that in mind.
“The CAA as the safety regulator allowed this aircraft to fly, to carry passengers. All the certificates and licences are needed for is the exchange of money. That issue is about payment and that can have nothing to do with danger.”

Defence says it's an 'unusual case'
Mr Spence takes the jury through some of the evidence and allegations in the case.

He said: “Nothing alleged in this indictment against Mr Henderson caused or contributed to the crash of this aircraft. The prosecution concede that. It’s a slightly unusual case, very often a jury’s task is slightly easier because they can consider cause and effect. They are able to work backwards.

“But here the danger is very much hypothetical. You have to decide whether danger arose from Mr Henderson’s actions and the danger was likely to cause real risk."

David Ibbotson was a very experienced pilot

Mr Spence turns to the topic of David Ibbotson.

He said: “He was a very experienced pilot. He got his licence in 1990 so at the time of this crash he had been flying for 28 or 29 years and had accumulated 3,500 hours of flight time, a significant amount for a pilot.

“He had an instrumentation rating and was able to land in bad weather.

“Let’s not pretend this was a man who had no experience or qualifications. He had two infringements that occurred in one day.

“Mr Henderson was criticised for saying Mr Ibbotson was responsible for the flight but there are responsibilities imposed on the pilot and responsibility for the safe conduct of the flight is with the flight.

“The prosecution seek to criticise Mr Henderson for seeking to blame Mr Ibbotson, as someone who is not here to defend himself, but it is the prosecution who are engaged in mudslinging.

“They try to claim Mr Ibbotson is an incompetent buffoon and incapable of finding his way to the aircraft, nevermind fyling it, and has no morall compass whatsoever. Where is the evidence he had no regard for aviation safety.”

Referring to the airspace infringements committed by Mr Ibbotson in 2018, Mr Spence said: “If he was incompetent, you’d think the CAA would want to stop that, but what did the CAA do? Absolutely nothing. Was that negligent because they missed it or was Mr Ibbotson’s infringements minor and inconsequential…

“We know Mr Ibbotson flew at night on previous occasions and demonstrates his competence.

“Both of these flights were organised and planned for day time.

“The prosecution say the pilot was not qualified. Qualified to do what? He was qualified to fly an aeroplane, he was qualified to fly the aeroplane in question, he was qualified to fly instruments.”

Mr Spence turns to Henderson’s role as the operator
He said: “Mr Henderson was criticised for saying he was not the operator, that comes from the statement, but he was given legal advice to the contrary and he has subsequently admitted he was (the operator).

“He’s accused of lying about financial arrangements but even if it was a lie, does it relate to the offence you are trying or it may relate to the other offence ( to which Henderson has pleaded guilty).”

Use your common sense, don’t leave the real world behind'
Mr Spence addresses the jury on their role.

He said: “Ladies and gentlemen, let’s be realistic. It’s for the prosecution to prove any point on which you come to consider the evidence and to prove it so you are sure.

“All sorts of people end up in front of the court, up and down the country. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. There’s no magic about it.

“Approach (Henderson) as how you’d hope a jury would approach you and bear in mind who he is.

“He’s 67-years-old, he’s a father and a grandfather, married for 38 years, a former RAF officer, a businessman and a pilot. He’s a person not that different to many of you.

“Use your common sense, don’t leave the real world behind. You have experience of people and life and most importantly you are impartial and fair. That’s what I ask you to be, to be fair and analyse the evidence in line with your directions.”

Let’s not pretend a commercial pilot is some kind of super pilot'
Mr Spence takes the jury through the four main points the prosecution highlighted in their closing speech.

He said: “The plane did not have an FCP or an AOC but in reality that is purely a paperwork issue. It doesn’t follow the lack of that created the likelihood of endangerment.

“David Ibbotson didn’t have a commercial licence. It meant he couldn’t get paid to fly but it doesn’t affect his ability to fly, his experience or competence. Let’s not pretend a commercial pilot is some kind of super pilot. A commercial licence is required for a pilot to receive payment but not in order to complete the flight. (Mr Ibbotson) was licenced to fly the aircraft and had the ability and competence to fly it.

“The expiring of David Ibbotson’s rating. If you can do it one day you can do it the next. You may lose the qualification but you don’t lose the ability. Let’s not pretend the fact the rating had expired some weeks before can affect competence. Where is the danger, where is the evidence that created a real risk of danger that aircraft was in on those two flights.

“Bad weather. The ACC rely on a text sent from Mr Ibbotson two days prior to the scheduled flight. That text came before departing from Gamston. They rely on that forecast for the return flight on Monday morning and by extension Monday evening. Do you think pilots plan their flights on the forecast app two or three days ahead? They use the most recent information. We have heard no evidence about forecasts and no evidence about bad weather being forecast

The defence argument seems really weak to me

Use your common sense, don’t leave the real world behind'
Mr Spence addresses the jury on their role.

He said: “Ladies and gentlemen, let’s be realistic. It’s for the prosecution to prove any point on which you come to consider the evidence and to prove it so you are sure.

“All sorts of people end up in front of the court, up and down the country. Sometimes rightly, sometimes wrongly. There’s no magic about it.

“Approach (Henderson) as how you’d hope a jury would approach you and bear in mind who he is.

“He’s 67-years-old, he’s a father and a grandfather, married for 38 years, a former RAF officer, a businessman and a pilot. He’s a person not that different to many of you.

“Use your common sense, don’t leave the real world behind. You have experience of people and life and most importantly you are impartial and fair. That’s what I ask you to be, to be fair and analyse the evidence in line with your directions.”

“He’s 67-years-old, he’s a father and a grandfather, married for 38 years, a former RAF officer, a businessman and a pilot. He’s a person not that different to many of you.


So what a young man in the prime of his life at the panicle of his career died

What a terrible line of defence!

Going down the human route!! Clutching at straws hopefully, all depends on the jury now but even without seeing all the evidence this looks guilty as sin.

Of course he looks guilty as fk to us but you never know which way a Jury will swing.

Previously reported , that Henderson knew that Ibbotson had money problems and a lot of debt , and would take any cash job on offer.
That's why Henderson would always use him .
It begs the question , how many flights in similar circumstances had he previously flew ? It was only a matter of time before a disaster happened .
Willie McKay , probably charged Nantes €30k to arrange the flight ,paid Henderson €4.5k who in turn paid Ibbotson €1k . It just stinks to high heaven, that an innocent young man died , because of peoples greed to make a fast Buck!!!
Hopefully the jury find him guilty.

Concluding his speech, Mr Spence said: “I repeat, use your common sense and fairness. Analyse the evidence and ask yourself if you are sure that these allegations by the prosecution has on proven on the evidence there is a real risk and likelihood that that aircraft on those two flights were in danger.”

The defence has finished its speech.

Court adjourned for the day the judge will complete his summing up in the morning before asking the jury to retire.


In my opinion we will get a verdict tomorrow for no other reason than Henderson and his legal team have put up a very weak defence. I cannot see the jury taking days over this verdict.

Jury retired to consider verdict at 10.30 this morning.

Jury retired to consider verdict at 10.30 this morning.

We doing a poll?

Guilty I reckon

Jury still not reached a verdict
Mr Justice Foxton re-enters the courtroom and is informed that the jury still has not reached a verdict.

He grants them extra time, saying he is “inclined to give them a little longer to see if there is any further communication.”


Worrying ?

Starting to smell a rat here?

Starting to smell a rat here?

Wow thought it would have been done by lunchtime ?