0
$\begingroup$

I know a similar question was asked here before, but there is a difference:

Let's say person X is on a flight from Pakistan to Canada on PIA (national carrier of Pakistan). The aircraft lands at, say, Toronto Pearson Airport.

From what I gather after reading the Tokyo Convention, the aircraft is no longer in flight once the airplane doors have been opened for disembarkation.

If an offence occurred on the airplane once the doors have been opened for disembarkation, which country is responsible for prosecution? The country where the aircraft is registered or the country where the plane has landed?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ When the door is open it's easy: the country where the aircraft is physically located. It's the case when door is closed that is difficult. $\endgroup$
    – Jan Hudec
    Nov 18, 2014 at 8:49

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Once the doors have been opened, it's a pretty clear case: the crime happens on some sovereign soil, and that country is responsible. They are also most likely to get custody of the criminal, which as described in the other answer is a large part of who prosecutes.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ i do have one more query though: Say person X, after having committed the offence on the plane (regardless of whether the airplane doors were closed or open), has disembarked from the plane without telling anybody of having committed the offence, and only told of committing the offence to Canadian authorities once he/she was away from the airplane, will the Tokyo Convention still apply? i.e., will the State of registration of the aircraft demand extradition of the offender to their country (in this case, Pakistan)? $\endgroup$
    – Peter South
    Nov 23, 2014 at 15:37

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .