Drone Smuggling Into Prisons Prosecutions
Key Legal Issues in Drone-Smuggling Cases
Before going through cases, some recurring legal issues are:
Defining the Offence: What statute defines the crime of smuggling (or “conveying”) items into prison? Sometimes specific laws are needed for “projecting an item into prison” or “providing contraband in a correctional facility.”
Use of Drones / Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS): Are there statutes covering unregistered aircraft, airman’s certificates, restricted airspace (no-fly zones), etc.
Conspiracy / Organized Crime: Many cases involve a conspiracy or organised crime component, with multiple actors (pilots, coordinators, insider assistance, etc).
Evidentiary Issues: How to prove that the item was conveyed, by whom, under what instructions, tracking the drone flights (flight logs, previous flights), etc.
Sentencing: Severity depends on quantity and class of contraband (drugs, weapons), number of incidents, level of planning, etc.
Now, here are several illustrative cases.
Case 1: Daniel Kelly (UK, Maidstone Crown Court, 2016)
Facts: Daniel Kelly was the first person in Britain to be convicted for using a drone to smuggle contraband into prisons. He flew a remote‑controlled drone carrying tobacco and the psychoactive drug “Spice” into prisons. Sky News+1
He had made flights against multiple prisons — HMP Swaleside, HMP The Mount, HMP Elmley, and attempted flights at HMP Wandsworth. Sky News
The drone was spray‑painted black, lights taped over — attempts to avoid detection. Sky News
Legal Charges: He pleaded guilty to “conspiracy to project an article into prison” — the law was relatively new (introduced in November prior to the case) in response to growing drone smuggling. Sky News+1
Outcome / Sentence: He was sentenced to 14 months in prison. Sky News+1
Significance / Precedent: As the first such conviction under that new statute, it helped establish legal recognition that projecting (delivering) items into prison via drone is prosecutable. It also showed that physical modifications to drone and attempted stealth are relevant to evidencing intent.
Case 2: Gang using Drones to Fly Drugs & Phones into Prisons (UK, 2016‑2017; Birmingham Crown Court, Sentenced 2018)
Facts: A well‑organised gang, led by Lee Anslow, allegedly conspired to deliver class A drugs, mobile phones, SIM cards etc. into various UK prisons via drones. They used fake food cans, fishing lines to drop packages, etc. The deliveries were over many prisons between April 2016 and June 2017. ITVX+2BBC+2
Charges: Conspiracy to bring drugs, mobile phones, sim cards into prisons; supplying psychoactive substances. ITVX+1
Evidence: Testimony, flight logs, confiscation of contraband in prisons, cell raid findings (fake food cans, etc.), phone records linking outside persons to inside inmates. ITVX+2BBC+2
Sentencing: Multiple members of the gang given sentences ranging from suspended sentences to up to 10 years. Lee Anslow, the ringleader, got 10 years. Others got between 3‑10 years. BBC+1
Legal Significance: This was a large‑scale case, showing the courts treating drone smuggling as serious organised crime. The legal approach included both drug supply laws and prison contraband / conspiracy laws. Helps demonstrate that repeated drone drops, across multiple prisons, can lead to heavy sentences.
Case 3: “Four Indicted in Scheme to Deliver Drugs into State Prisons by Drone” (U.S., Eastern District of California, 2023)
Facts: An inmate at Pleasant Valley State Prison (Michael Ray Acosta) and others were indicted for scheming to use drones to deliver drugs and other contraband into state prisons. The timeline: Jan‑Dec 2021. Drones were flown from outside; packages of contraband were dropped into the prison grounds. Department of Justice
Legal Charges:
Conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana.
Conspiracy to own and operate an unregistered drone, and serving or attempting to serve as an “airman” without an airman’s certificate.
Using phones in aid of racketeering. Department of Justice
Legal Statutes: U.S. federal law concerning unregistered aircraft, airman’s certificate requirements, conspiracy statutes, drug distribution statutes, and racketeering/organized crime provisions.
Importance: Combines drone regulation with drug law and prison contraband law. Demonstrates how U.S. federal law is being used to prosecute drone‑assisted prison contraband smuggling.
Case 4: Georgia State Prison Case – Illegal Drone Operator Sentenced (U.S., Middle District of Georgia, 2019)
Facts: Eric Lee Brown attempted to use a drone to drop a large bag of marijuana into Autry State Prison (Pelham, Georgia). He operated an unregistered drone. Department of Justice+1
Charge(s): Operating an aircraft eligible for registration, knowing it was not registered, in order to facilitate a controlled substance offense. Department of Justice+1
Sentence: He was sentenced to 48 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release. Department of Justice
Significance: First, the case shows the U.S. federal government’s ability to enforce aviation/drone regulatory law (registration etc.) in addition to drug laws. Also, gives insight into sentencing severity when large quantities or serious effort are involved.
Case 5: U.K. – Lucy Adcock “Parc / Multiple Prisons” Case, 2024
Facts: Lucy Adcock, age 47, jailed for her role in a gang that performed over 20 drone flights into six UK prisons, delivering £1,420,000 worth of drugs, mobile phones, SIM cards, etc. Drones flown at night. She either flew drones herself or directed others. BBC
Charge(s): Attempted conspiracy to convey List A articles (drugs) and List B articles (phones etc) into prisons. BBC
Sentence: Six years’ imprisonment. BBC
Significance: One of the more recent high value cases. The scale (valued over a million), the number of prisons involved, demonstrates that courts take commercial scale drone‐smuggling into account. Also shows that legal frameworks around “List A / List B” contraband categories are effective in UK prosecutions.
Case 6: Two Brothers – Georgia, U.S. – 2021
Facts: George Lo (27) and Nicholas Lo (25) were sentenced after admitting to using a drone to smuggle contraband into a Georgia state prison. Department of Justice
Charges: Among other charges were owning an unregistered aircraft, serving as or attempting to serve as an airman without certificate. Department of Justice
Sentence: Each got 12 months in federal prison; also supervised release. Department of Justice
Legal Importance: Emphasizes using aviation/drone regulation laws in conjunction with prison contraband law. Also, even when the amount or frequency might be less, defendants can still receive significant prison time under federal laws.
Additional Case: Four found Guilty – Onley & Gartree (UK), 2025
Facts: Four individuals, including a former police officer, were found guilty of smuggling contraband (Class A & B drugs, spice, tobacco, phones, etc.) via drones flown “to order” into HMP Onley and HMP Gartree in 2021‑2022. Packages had high prison value (e.g. one package at least had heroin, cannabis worth many thousands in prison value). northants.police.uk
Charges: Again under conspiracy / organising to project or convey contraband into prison using drone. northants.police.uk
Importance: Illustrative of insider risk (former police officer involved), scale (multiple prisons, many dates), and how repeated offenses accumulate to serious cases.
Legal Doctrines / Statutes Commonly Used
From these cases we can abstract some common legal frameworks:
In the UK, laws against “conveying an article into prison” — dividing contraband into “List A” (e.g. drugs, weapons) and “List B” (phones etc.) — provide the foundation. Also, laws about projecting items into prison premises/prohibited zones. (E.g. s.128 of the Prison Act, or specific legislation made in response to drone threats).
Also aviation/drone specific regulations: No‑fly zones around prisons; drone registration; unregistered aircraft; operator identification.
In the USA, federal law (FAA / aviation law), unregistered aircraft laws, laws on serving as airman without certificate, drug trafficking, conspiracy, racketeering. State statutes too, where applicable.
Sentencing tends to consider quantity, frequency and planning / level of organisation.
What These Cases Show / Key Lessons
Prosecutorial viability: These cases show that using drones for smuggling is now prosecutable via different angles: prison contraband law, drug law, aviation regulation, conspiracy, etc.
Evidence collection is crucial: Tracking flight logs, finding the drone, analysing its storage (e.g. previous flights), cell raids, phone records, etc.
Scale matters: More flights, more prisons involved, high value or dangerous contraband => much higher sentences.
Newer laws have been introduced: Some jurisdictions had to amend or enact laws specifically to cover “projecting items into prison” by drone or to create restricted airspace zones.
Defences may include: lack of registration, ignorance of status, showing that contraband was dropped accidentally, etc — but many cases overcome these via evidence (intent, prior history, repeated attempts).
RELATED Blog
0 comments