Criminal prosecution of Garuda pilot

[Greg W.]

Originally Posted by Mick M

Any evidence can be tendered

There may be an attempt to tender material, but it is another thing whether it will be allowed into evidence. Put simply, the tendering of a document may (1) be objected to, and (2) the magistrate/judge may not allow it into evidence (after hearing legal argument on its admissibility).

Originally Posted by Mick M

... in court and there is very little information these days that cannot be subpoenaed in legal proceedings, particularly when there is a strong probitive value attached to that information.

Just because evidence is probative, does not of itself make it admissible. The court may refuse to admit evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger that the evidence might: (a) be unfairly prejudicial to a party; or b) be misleading or confusing; or (c) cause or result in undue waste of time. (s135 Evidence Act) In criminal proceedings, the court must refuse to admit evidence adduced by the prosecutor if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. (s137 Evidence Act). That being said, I have never dealt with the rules of evidence anywhere outside of Australia, nor the Indonesian criminal burden of proof.

One MAJOR point I am completely bemused by is why the pilot didn't exercise his right to silence. My mind boggles at his decision to talk to the police, especially considering they are seeking life upon conviction. People will generally dig themselves a hole when trying to assist / cooperate with the authorities by participating in an interview; Rarely is it helpful for a defendant.

[Nigel C]

Does Indonesia provide the accused the right to silence?

[Philip Argy]

Today's news:

Pilot pleads not guilty over Garuda crash

An Indonesian pilot has pleaded not guilty to deliberately crashing a passenger jet last year, killing 21 people including four Australian officials and a journalist at Yogyakarta airport.
"It is impossible that with experience of 22 years as a pilot I would deliberately crash the plane," Marwoto Komar told a district court in Yogyakarta, Central Java.
"I didn't have any intention to carelessly do things to harm the passengers," he said, wearing his pilot's uniform.
With his voice trembling, the former Garuda pilot added, "God please allow me to fly again".
A Indonesian Government probe found Komar ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings not to land as he brought the plane in at roughly twice the safe speed, causing the jet to bounce and burst into flames in ricefields.
The four Australian Government officials and journalist killed were following a visit by then Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer, who was on a separate plane.
Prosecutors last month charged Mr Komar with three counts of negligence and one count of "deliberately" destroying or damaging an aircraft causing death, charges that carry a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Komar has had his pilot's licence suspended.
He was sacked by Garuda in February.
Indonesia, which relies heavily on air links across the archipelago, has one of Asia's worst air safety records.

[Montague S]

here's hoping he's not made a scapegoat and that Garuda gets processes & recommendations sorted so this doesn't happen again.

[Philip Argy]

News just in:

Trial of Garuda crash pilot to proceed

An Indonesian court has ruled that it will proceed with the trial of a pilot charged with deliberately crashing a passenger jet in 2007, killing 21 people, including five Australians.
After considering preliminary arguments from prosecutors as well as lawyers for the Indonesian pilot, who has pleaded not guilty, judge Sri Andini said the case should go ahead.
"We rejected a plea of not guilty filed by the defendant's lawyer and decided to continue the hearing," the judge told Sleman district court in central Java province.
She said witnesses will be called when the trial resumes on September 15.
When Marwoto Komar, a former captain from flag carrier Garuda Indonesia, entered his plea last month, he said that with 22 years of experience as a pilot he would not have deliberately crashed the plane.
A government probe found Komar ignored 15 automated cockpit warnings not to land as he brought the plane in at roughly twice the safe speed, causing the jet to bounce and burst into flames in nearby rice fields.
"I don't have any choice but to accept the decision," Komar told reporters following Judge Andini's ruling.
His lawyer, Muhammad Assegaf, said he was surprised by the judge's decision and that the court should consider international civil aviation codes, which rule out criminal liability for pilots in crashes.
But Judge Andini noted in her ruling that "everybody is equal before the law, with no exception for a pilot".

[Philip Argy]

An update from ABC News on the original story:

Charge downgraded, Garuda crash pilot facing 4 years

By Jakarta correspondent Geoff Thompson

A guilty finding on the "deliberate" crash charge would have sent the accused to jail for life. (Reuters: Dwi Oblo, file photo)



Indonesian prosecutors have dropped a charge alleging that a former Garuda pilot "deliberately" crashed a jet in which five Australians died in March 2007.

They are now seeking a four-year jail term for pilot Marwoto Komar.
Prosecutors leading the criminal case against Komar had alleged that he had "deliberately" crashed the jet in which 21 people died when it broke apart and caught fire upon landing in Jogyakarta in March of 2007.
Cockpit recordings proved that Komar had ignored 15 automated warnings and the advice of his co-pilot before Garuda Flight 200 bounced off the runway at almost twice the normal landing speed.

Prosecutors have downgraded their sentence demand to four years prison, alleging only that he negligently caused the deaths of others.

Wearing his pilot's uniform to court, Komar has said he hopes to fly again.

[NickN]

here's hoping he's not made a scapegoat and that Garuda gets processes & recommendations sorted so this doesn't happen again.

No process can account for a human beings choice to ignore cockpit warning signals. All the processes in the world cannot override human decisions.

And is it just me, or is it extremely light punishment to get 4 years for killing 21 people, and Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for 4kg of dope? Which never killed a single person.

[Greg McDonald]

Originally Posted by NickN

No process can account for a human beings choice to ignore cockpit warning signals. All the processes in the world cannot override human decisions.

And is it just me, or is it extremely light punishment to get 4 years for killing 21 people, and Schapelle Corby gets 20 years for 4kg of dope? Which never killed a single person.

Absolutely agree. And since when is "had ignored 15 automated warnings and the advice of his co-pilot before Garuda Flight 200 bounced off the runway at almost twice the normal landing speed." not deliberate?

Sounds to me like typical Indonesian justice (or lack thereof) at work here!!

[Stephen B]

Could one of the pilots on this board please tell me what is the difference between the responsibilties of driving a car and flying an aircraft?

There seems to be a theme through this thread that pilots should not face criminal charges from an accident in which they are involved and found to be at fault. There also seems to be a view that the findings of an accident investigation should never be used by the justice system in the support of any charges.

There was also a comment made that pilots would simply pull the circuit breaker on the CVR in fear of it being used as evidence. Surely no pilot worthy of his license would ever stoop to that? Do we need to have control of that sort of equipment taken away from the flight crew? And if the data recorded is good enough for a correct finding in an accident investigation, then assuming evidential rules are met, why should it not be allowed in court if needed? I agree the report is not intended to be proof of criminal conduct or intent, but it is a factual statement of what was done.

I'm not commenting on the Garuda case, simply in general. If you have an at fault accident in a car for any reason you rightly face prosecution for negligence. The same applies for the crew of a ship. Why should the same thing not apply to pilots. I most certainly agree that no charges could be laid until after the accident investigation was complete, however long that might take. But if you allow yourself, or choose, to stuff up, how could you possibly think you should not be brought to task for what you had done?

I though airlines went out of their way to train "The God Concept" out of their crews these days.

[Stephen B]

Bump.

Come on guys, I'm not a pilot or in any way associated with the aviation industry, so could one of the pilots on this board, perhaps AdamP, Nigel C, or Chris G please explain your view points in an answer to my question?

You make it sound as if Pilots think they should be absolved of all responsibility in all circumstances, and wish to deny anyone outside the aviation industry the chance to understand what is going on.

As a member of the general travelling public, that sounds rather reckless and scary to me.

Stephen.