WIX Archives

Who owns them anyway??

Posted by andy saunders on Sat Jul 06, 2002 03:49:24 AM

It seems an interesting deabate has been opened up by comments arising out of my case. In a way, the issue of Crown/MOD ownership was central in the final analysis to the proceedings in my case. However, I will not comment further via this forum on the court case or its satisfactory outcome - save to say that the RAF Press Officer Squadron Leader Elaine McLeod this week said that I had been "exonerated". Coupled with Judge Rennie's praise of my actions isn't it, surely, a case of 'nuff said on that point? Ownership though, now thats another matter!
It is a fact that RAF aircraft wrecks, wherever they were in the world, were "Struck off Charge". Look at the relevant Air Publications on that point and draw your own conclusions. Moving on to 8th May 1972, the MOD said in writing that they had no further interest in these wrecks, that they had abandoned all claim to them and that they had been reduced into the possession of the landowner upon whos land they lay. By about 1975 the MOD were taking a different stance, saying they owned them after all. Despite being pressed repeatedly on the matter they have never satisfactorily explained the change of tack. Considering that they "abandoned" them through the Struck off Charge process and confirmed the abandonment in 1972 I believe that MOD claim to title is tenuous in the extreme. Add to this the civil laws on abandonment and I fail to see they have any case at all. If you or I left our property on private land for sixty years or more I suspect our claim to ownership might be a little shaky. Ah, yes, I hear you all say, but what about the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986? Well, what about it? Can we dispel a myth here. The PMR Act does not confer ownership of wrecked aircraft on the MOD. It is entirely silent on the issue, and so were the debates on the matter in the Houses of Commons and Lords. The MOD would like to have us believe that the Act does confer ownership - but read it and see. It does not. All it does is require that within the UK one needs a licence to work on crash sites. As for RAF wrecks abroad, well the Act cannot apply outside the UK so only the sovereign laws of the land where the wrecks lie could be applicable. Of course, if asked, then I am sure the MOD will claim wrecks as their own just in a rather opportunistic way in case they decide they want them. The Lancaster in Sweden is an interesting case.
As for former USAAF aircraft, the written US Policy on these (unlike USN airplanes) is total abandonment in exactly the same way as the MOD stance in May 1972. I have it in writing, chapter and verse, from the US authorities. Meanwhile, the MOD here untruthfully claim in writing that USAAF wrecks still belong to the US Government - but the US Government are saying opposite. Either the MOD are muddled in their stance over the whole ownership thing, or they are not playing with a straight bat.
Sorry about the length of this, but I hope it opens up a debate. It is a serious issue. For example, what about RAF wrecks brought into the UK and restored? In theory, if it ever came to an export licence, the UK Govt could say "No" because Hurricane P1234 or whatever is still Crown Property. Do I have a point? Andy Saunders.

Follow Ups: