Undeclared dangerous goods resulting in imprisonment of shipper

Violators of Dangerous Goods Regulations are frequently prosecuted. Heavy fines are usualy imposed and recently a prison sentence was imposed. A consignment of cargo which had been transported from London Heathrow to Dubai on a British Airways passenger aircraft, was subject to a security inspection at Dubai Airport. The consignment, which was en route to Tehran, Iran, consisted of a single package. Upon opening the package, a number of inner packagings of a variety of dangerous goods were discovered, including 3 which are forbidden for carriage on both passenger and cargo aircraft.

The package bore no marks or labels to suggest it contained dangerous goods, nor was it accompanied by a Dangerous Goods Transport Document.

This incident was investigated jointly by the UK Civil Aviation Authority and the General Civil Aviation Authority of the United Arab Emirates. Expert opinion regarding a spillage of methylhydrazine, thionyl chloride or phosphorus oxychloride on board the aircraft was that it could have resulted in lethal effects within a period of hours. On contact with moisture, thionyl chloride and phosphorus oxychloride decompose to form hydrogen chloride, a toxic and corrosive gas, the inhalation of which is likely to form hydrochloric acid in the lungs. Thionyl chloride additionally decomposes to form sulfur dioxide, also a toxic and corrosive gas. Methylhydrazine, thionyl chloride and phosphorus oxychloride present a danger to the aircraft; methylhydrazine because of it’s potential to cause an explosion, thionyl chloride and phosphorus oxychloride because of their decomposition products being able to attack the structure of the aircraft.

The sole proprietor of the shipper appeared at Maidstone Crown Court where he pleaded guilty to recklessly endangering an aircraft and an offence against the Air Navigation (Dangerous Goods) Regulations 2002. By his own admission, the defendant had bowed to commercial pressure. Jailing him for 12 months, Judge Jeremy Carey entirely concurred with the decision of the CAA to bring this prosecution and said the seriousness of the offence had to be marked by a custodial sentence. He told the defendant "You had a desire to further your business and enhance your profit – laudable motives in the everyday course of business but not when you put others at risk".