Sussex Police Criticised Over Lack Of "Gatwick Drone" Incident Report

Two people, wrongly suspected of disrupting Gatwick Airport with a drone in December 2018, have launched severe criticism of Sussex Police — and the Sussex Police and Crime Commissioner has joined the chorus of disapproval.

Gatwick flights were abandoned on several occasions between 19 and 21 December 2018, at a peak time for Christmas travel, after a security officer claimed a drone had been seen near the airfield.

The safety implications of an unmanned aerial vehicle being near the operational zone were extremely serious.

Armed police later arrested Crawley couple Paul and Elaine Gait — who later, according to the Press Association, received a £200,000 settlement and an apology from Sussex Police.

Police released them with no further action, after a torrent of evidence including alibis showed that neither of the people detained was involved in the incident.

To this day, no-one has ever been charged with causing the disruption to the airport.

Police said a comprehensive report would be prepared, and confirmed in January 2019 that a redacted version was in preparation for public release.

But, after a year of requests from the Press Association for the censored version, the agency reported today (June 25) that its release had been postponed, without a date being given for its publication.

A full version, police have explained, would be impossible to release because of the detailed information it contained about airport security.

The request was made under the Freedom of Information Act, but the agency said Sussex Police had applied part of the FOI Act that exempts information “held with a view to future publication without setting a date”.

In an interview with the Press Association, Paul and Elaine Gait were quoted as making scathing comments about the police response.

They told the PA that Sussex Police, in not releasing the report, had shown the same “high-handed attitude” that officers displayed at the time of their arrest.

The Press Association today reported them as saying: 

“This appears to us, not about lessons learned and preventing harm in the future, but seems to be more about protecting the reputation of the Sussex police force from scrutiny and criticism of our pain and the unlawfulness and injustice that occurred to us.

“This most recent failure to deal with us fairly and openly is an opportunity lost in giving us some measure of the truth and reconciliation we are owed.”

Criticism has also reportedly come from the woman who supervises the work of Sussex Police.

Katy Bourne is quoted as promising further action, and telling the PA:

“I strongly support the general principle of maximum transparency in policing.

“I understand that PA have been in regular contact with the force to get a copy of the report and that the FOI team have explained that they have a redaction process under way involving consultation with national partners.

“Having raised the issue of FOI response times in previous scrutiny meetings, I know that Sussex Police have made improvements in most cases.

“However, I am extremely disappointed that, in this instance, the process has taken such a long time.

“As a result, I will be looking further at this particular request to understand the complexity and subsequent delays around it.”

Police themselves also issued an apology through the news agency:

"The publication of our review requires consultation with partners to understand any security concerns and scrutiny by the ICO to ensure we are being as transparent as possible and correctly applying the Act.

“In an effort to be as transparent as we can be, we remain in discussion with the ICO regarding the publication of a redacted version.

“We regret that our response to the FOI request has taken this long and will address any complaints.”