Law School

Undergraduate Assessment Problem

22035 & 22079 Public Law and Administration

Submission Date – Wednesday 19th January 2011

Submission Time - between 10.00 am and 12.00 Noon
Submission Venue - Law School Office (Room 410)

Before preparing and submitting your essay, read carefully the instructions in the Law School
Student Handbook on presentation and submission of assessed work as well as the information
about penalties for late-submission, exceeding the word-limit, and unfair means. (The handbook
may be viewed on eBridge)

PENALTIES WILL BE STRICTLY IMPOSED FOR ESSAYS THAT ARE SUBMITTED LATE,
EXCEED THE WORD LIMIT AND FOR ANY USE OF UNFAIR MEANS

When to submit your essay:

(a) Before the time-slot specified above: Via the undergraduate assessment essay box (near
th
room 444 on the 4 Floor, Wilberforce Building). Please do not take your essay to the Law
School Office except during the time indicated above. The essay box will be sealed just before
the start of the above submission time.

(b) During the time-slot specified above: If you do not submit via the essay box before the
submission time, your essay must be submitted to the Law School Office during the time-slot
specified above. Do not attempt to submit your essay by any other means.

How to submit your essay:

Download the declaration form from eBridge and attach it to the front of your essay.
Do not write your name on the essay or the declaration form as work is marked anonymously.
Do not put your essay in an envelope or document wallet.

Essay not to exceed 2,500 words. Essay is worth 33% of final module mark.
All legislation referred to in this problem scenario is fictitious.

In order to combat growing security problems at airports, Parliament has passed the
Airport Security Act 2010. The Act seeks to give powers to the Secretary of State for
Transport to introduce a range of measures designed to increase security at British
airports. Of the Act, three sections are of particular significance:

Section 1, which permits the Secretary of State to draw up Regulations

compelling airlines to take measures to enhance security. The Act states that
such Regulations can only be drawn up after “consultation with relevant
parties”.

Section 2, which creates a system of licensing for all airline employees. The Act
states that no person can be employed by an airline until they are approved and
licensed as being “suitable” by the Secretary of State for Transport. The Act

Page 1 of 3
 states that all present employees will be required to apply for a licence, and
gives them a three month period to apply from the coming into force of the Act.

Section 3, gives the Secretary of State various powers. These include: imposing
penalties, including fines; confiscation of equipment; and, for serious breaches
of regulations under section 1, revocation of an air carrier’s licence to operate
flights, and a similar power of revocation where persons not licensed under the
system created under section 2 are employed by an airline. Where a licence is
revoked, the airline subject to the revocation will no longer be able to operate
flights in and out of the UK.

The Act has now been in force for three and a half months, and the Secretary of
State has taken a number of steps to enforce the provisions of the Act. As a result,
the following clients come to your office seeking advice on the possible success of a
judicial review application, bringing an action in private law or seeking redress
through alternative grievance resolution mechanisms in order to resolve their
present problems:

(a) Using the powers under Section 1, the Secretary of State introduces
Regulations requiring all airlines to conduct searches of passengers at the gate
prior to boarding in order to prevent ‘dangerous items’ from being taken
aboard aeroplanes. Andy, a director of Hullair, a small airline flying from Hull
airport comes to you for advice. He is aggrieved because Hullair were not
consulted prior to the introduction of the Regulations, and also because Hullair
have been subject to enforcement action under section 3. The enforcement
action arose because one of Hullair’s searches failed to find a small pair of nail
clippers which a passenger had in her handbag which were then discovered
when she began to use them on the flight. In response to this, the Secretary of
State determined that the nail clippers were a ‘dangerous item’ fined Hullair
£250,000 and confiscated the aeroplane where the incident occurred. Hullair
was not given a hearing before the punishment was imposed, and has not
been informed whether or not the confiscated aeroplane will be returned to
them.

(b) The Airline Pilots Association, which comes to you on behalf of a large number
of its members. Problems have arisen because pilots who were already
employed by airlines prior to the enactment of the Act were all obliged to
apply for licences under the terms of section 2 of the Airport Security Act 2006.
The large number of applications has led to a significant backlog of applications
for licences, and the Department for Transport has not issued licenses to over
50% of the Association’s members within the three month time limit of the
coming into force of the Act as imposed by section 2. Despite this problem, the
Secretary of State has stuck rigidly to the provisions of the Act, and has
threatened to impose sanctions on any airline using pilots who do not yet have
a licence. This situation has led to significant loss of earnings for many of the

Page 2 of 3
 Association’s members, who have been unable to contact the Department for
Transport to enquire about the progress of their licence applications.

(c) Flyinair, an airline which has been similarly affected by the Department for
Transport’s failure to issue licences to its employees. A senior civil servant in
the Department for Transport told Flyinair that it would not be subject to any
sanction for using pilots whose licences had not yet been issued until the
backlog was resolved. It now faces a fine of £100,000 for the use of unlicensed
pilots.

(d) David, a very experienced airline pilot. David has been a vocal opponent of the
government’s introduction of the Airport Security Act, and has featured in a
number of national newspapers and on national television criticising the
government’s measures as being ineffective. When the Act was passed, David
applied for a licence under the provisions of section 2 and has been refused. A
civil servant from the Department for Transport wrote to David informing him
that his application had been refused because he is deemed to be ‘unsuitable’.

Approved by external examiner 1/11/10

Page 3 of 3