Drone Flying: Police Powers of Enforcement

Drone flying is an increasingly popular pursuit, which allows operators of all abilities to capture stunning imagery with relative ease and affordability.

I have also been bitten by the drone bug and my recent Christmas present to myself was a DJI Mini 4 Pro (aff. link).

I have been learning to fly over the fields next to my home. As a conscientious drone operator I have become familiar with the rules that govern how and where I can fly, most of which are enshrined in the Air Navigation Order 2016. 

Fascinating as those rules are, I shan't be dwelling on them today. Instead I shall be looking at the main legislation that grants the police enforcement powers in relation to the use of drones - the Air Traffic Management and Unmanned Aircraft Act 2021.

Drones are referred to as unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) throughout the legislation. The remote pilot is the person flying the drone. The operator is the person responsible for managing the drone, who may well be the owner. In the case of smaller, amateur drones the remote pilot and operator are likely to be the same person. 

For most types of drone, the operator is required to be registered with the Civil Aviation Authority. For larger drones (those with a mass of 250 grams or more), the remote pilot also needs to be registered and satisfy a competency requirement.

Schedule 9 of the Act describes a range of powers available to the police in relation to the 2016 Order.

The offences described in schedule 9 attract a fine on summary conviction, but the court has the additional power to order deprivation of any item used in the commission of an offence (e.g. drones and ancillary equipment).

Below I summarise each of the schedule 9 powers. There's a fair bit to read, so if you're in a hurry I would draw your attention to the powers described in paragraph 8 to section 9 which allow a police constable to inspect a drone in a person's possession, using reasonable force if necessary, in order to ascertain if any of the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 7 apply.

It is not the case, as some people mistakenly believe, that the police can only ask to inspect a person's drone if they suspect an offence is being committed.

• Power to require remote pilot to provide evidence of competency:

Paragraph 1 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the remote pilot of a drone to provide evidence of their competency to act as such.

An offence is committed by a remote pilot who is (or has been) flying a drone who fails to provide evidence of competency, where such a competency requirement exists.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require remote pilot to provide operator details:

Paragraph 2 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the remote pilot of a drone to provide information as to the identity of the operator.

An offence is committed by a remote pilot who is (or has been) flying a drone who is able provide information as to the identity of the operator, but fails to do so, where a registration requirement exists.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require operator to provide evidence of registration:

Paragraph 3 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the operator of a drone to provide evidence of registration.

An offence is committed by an operator responsible for a flight, who fails to provide evidence of registration, where a registration requirement exists.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require operator to provide remote pilot details:

Paragraph 4 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the operator of a drone to provide information as to the identity of the remote pilot.

An offence is committed by an operator responsible for a flight who is able provide information as to the identity of the remote pilot, but fails to do so, where a competency requirement exists.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require remote pilot or operator to provide other information:

Paragraph 5 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the operator or remote pilot of a drone to provide other information, as may be specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State.

An offence is committed by an operator or remote pilot who is (or has been) flying a drone who is able provide such information, but fails to do so.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require evidence of consent for certain flights:

Paragraph 6 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the operator or remote pilot of a drone to provide evidence of any consents required, in accordance with the 2016 Order, for the flight.

For example, the flight might only be permissable if consent has been obtained from a nearby airfield etc.

An offence is committed by an operator or remote pilot who is (or has been) flying a drone without consent, where such consent is necessary.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to require evidence of exemptions for certain flights:

Paragraph 7 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person that they reasonably suspect of being the operator or remote pilot of a drone to provide evidence of any ANO exemption applying to the flight - e.g. an order made by the Civil Aviation Authority that exempts the flight from requirements it would normally be subject to.

An offence is committed by an operator or remote pilot who is (or has been) flying a drone who fails to provide evidence of any ANO exemption, where such an exemption exists.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 2 (£500).

• Power to inspect unmanned aircraft in relation to other powers:

Paragraph 8 to schedule 9 allows a constable to require a person in possession of a drone to allow the constable to inspect it, in order to ascertain if any of the provisions of paragraphs 1 to 7 apply.

A constable may use reasonable force to exercise this power.

An offence is committed by a person who fails to allow the constable to inspect the drone.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

• Offence of providing false or misleading information:

Paragraph 9 to schedule 9 makes it an offence for a person to provide false or misleading information, either deliberately or recklessly, where required to provide information under this schedule.

The maximum penalty on summary conviction is a fine at level 3 (£1,000).

• Provision of information at a police station:

Paragraph 10 to schedule 9 permits any person under a requirement to provide information to a police constable by virtue of paragraphs 1 to 7, to provide that information at a nominated police station within seven days.

It also states that it is a defence for a person charged with an offence under any of paragraphs 1 to 7 to prove that it was not reasonably practicable to provide what the constable required at the nominated police station before the day on which the proceedings were commenced.