CAA prosecutions annual summary

[Legalapproach]

The CAA have just published their annual review of CAA prosecutions.

The interesting feature of it appears to be the number of errors or misleading entries.

There was a conviction under article 26 of the Air Navigation Order for “Aircraft Flying over a fishing boat”. Article 26 refers to “Members of flight crew – requirement for a licence”. Is there a type rating or endorsement for flying over a fishing boat? If so I better get one for my occasional cross-channel forays.

Another licence offence resulted in the defendant being released after two weeks imprisonment although according to the table he was only sentenced to 200 hours Community Service. Did the prison release him/her only after they realised their mistake?

An entry for invalid AOC at Southwark Crown Court suggests that the defendant pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and fined £5,000 for the offence. In fact the defendant pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court. There were two offences and the fine was £2,500 per offence. This latter might appear to be a distinction without a difference but the table is sometimes used to give guidance as to the level of penalty imposed in such cases and a future court could be led to believe that the level of fine ought to be £5,000 per offence.

An entry for Blackpool Magistrates shows a defendant pleading not guilty to flying with an expired C of A but being found guilty and being fined £5,000 with £7,000 costs. If it’s the case I’m thinking of the defendant appealed to the Crown Court where he was found not guilty, the fine and costs order was quashed and the successful appellant received his costs from central funds.

Let’s hope the other entries are more accurate – unless of course you know different.
:oh:

[L'aviateur]

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/AnnualProsecutionResultsfrom01042008to31052009.pdf

LEGISLATION DESCRIPTION OF OFFENCE COURT RESULT SENTENCE COSTS - 2 -
Article 94(5), ANO 2005
Falsifying logbooks
Bournemouth Magistrates Court
Guilty plea
Fine £10000
£2000

Thats a major fine, the fact that it says logbooks makes it even more interesting.

Would love to know a bit more about some of these prosecutions and how/why they happened.

4 Class A infringement and 3 Class D infringment prosecutions,

[IO540]

I have been watching these prosecution lists for the last few years and they have been puzzling.

They show almost no NG verdicts, yet the stories from aviation lawyers suggest that many cases are lost, or withdrawn on the steps of the Court. So I kind of expect the CAA to rigorously list only those which they win, but that is evidently not quite the case. Are they really so slick, with NG plea defendants, in bringing to Court only those where a convinction is virtually certain?

One remarkable feature of the last list is the # of CAS bust prosecutions. This is a new thing; previous lists did not show much in this caregory and mostly only big media profile TRA busts were prosecuted. I wonder how, out of the hundreds of major-league CAS busts each year, they choose who to go after? They were all G pleas so could not have been cases of "poor attitude", unless the poor attitude was only at the initial "interview".

The false logbook case is interesting IF the £10,000 fine is not a misprint. I wonder what he was doing. My guess (not being a lawyer) is that he lied his way into some nice position (737 RHS job perhaps??) by forging his logbook; merely writing up loads of nonexistent flights into one's private flying logbook should not interest the CAA all that much... The 1500hr ATPL requirement is an absolutely totally ripe area for logbook forgery because those hours can be built up flying almost anything anywhere that is bigger than a kite, and a lot of them will be all but impossible to verify years later. I used to have a BCPL instructor who claimed to have an ATPL but he never got anywhere with it - assuming it existed as a real document which I doubt.

The head of prosecutions at the CAA is Ian Weston; I guess one could write to him for an explanation of something?

[englishal]

I wonder what he was doing. My guess (not being a lawyer) is that he lied his way into some nice position (737 RHS job perhaps??) by forging his logbook
I reckon it was Engine / Airframe logbooks. I'd be very interested to know more about this case......There was some goings on at EGHH a while back where someone was doing some naughty maintenance without approvals.....May be totally unrelated but I know the CAA were involved.

Aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome & going round the circuit the wrong way
This one has me puzzled. Firstly how would this ever come to court, and secondly it seems a very odd case to bring to court?

[Legalapproach]

Aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome & going round the circuit the wrong way

You'll note that it was a rule 5 offence (500 foot rule). Allegation of a beat up.

[M609]

4 Class A infringement and 3 Class D infringment prosecutions

Must have been pretty deliberate or gross negligence, or is "Just Culture" not part of the Uk CAA SOP yet? :ouch:

[englishal]

Further to last post....

http://www.pprune.org/engineers-technicians/335310-airtime-aviation.html

(NB: Pprune's software decides the name of the hyperlink, not me ;))

[UV]

Why do you get fined an average of £687.50 for infringing Class A airspace and £ 916.66 for infringing Class D??

[Flying Lawyer]

IO540 They show almost no NG verdicts, yet the stories from aviation lawyers suggest that many cases are lost, or withdrawn on the steps of the Court.
Are they really so slick, with NG plea defendants, in bringing to Court only those where a convinction is virtually certain?

Most of those prosecuted by the CAA plead Guilty, which may or may not be because ...
Most of them do not obtain advice from specialist aviation lawyers.

Of those who plead Not Guilty and are represented by a specialist aviation lawyer, most are found Not Guilty.

(Edit)

englishal Aircraft flying in the vicinity of an aerodrome & going round the circuit the wrong way.

This one has me puzzled.
Court: Newport IOW Magistrates Court
Result: Not Guilty
Costs: Awarded from central funds (ie Pilot's costs)

I wonder (see Note below) if this relates to a case of mine. If it does, it was an allegation of low flying in a Hunter. (Alleged breach of Rule 5)

Firstly how would this ever come to court?
I assume because the CAA didn't foresee that their witnesses' allegations would be demolished in cross-examination.
Secondly it seems a very odd case to bring to court.
I agree.

It was my last aviation case as a barrister - and a very satisfying way to end that stage of my career! :)

Note:
My case was in July 2007. I suppose it's possible another pilot faced the same allegation in the same court with exactly the same result in the period April 2008 - March 2009.


FL

[vee-tail-1]

<< It was my last aviation case as a barrister - and a very satisfying way to end that stage of my career! http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif >>

I am sure many of us have good reason to be thankful for your help during that time. :ok:
However not having that help available any more is a bit worrying. I wonder if you have any observations on the currently available specialist aviation lawyers, particularly those whose standards match your own.

[vanHorck]

I have emailed Ian Weston at the CAA and asked him for clarification. He is away till May 11, but his colleague has told me he will reply shortly thereafter.

As soon as he has I will report back. Meanwhile, do feel free to post other questions here as to the accuracy of the list, I have mailed him the link.

vH

[vanHorck]

I have just received an email from his colleague. It reads:

"In Ian's absence I have amended a few small errors. The new version will be put on the website tomorrow.


Kind regards"

[Legalapproach]

Ahhh the power of Pprune - well done Van Horck; a number of the entries have now been amended but the Blackpool case of flying with an expired C of A still fails to explain that the conviction was overturned on appeal:ok:

[Flight International]

Hi
The case was brought back to court as the man with the x vulcan claimed it was not him but the company, to every one's dissapointment the Judge ruled in x vulcans favour.
2 months later he was back in court and the CAA brought the same case against the company, this time the judge took no fooling about and fined the company £6k x 2 for each offence and £8K costs.
Justice at last :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

Having now looked at the previous year's 'Results' published by the CAA, it appears that there were indeed two similar cases in the IoW Magistrates Court in consecutive years - both with the same result.

vee-tail-1 I wonder if you have any observations on the currently available specialist aviation lawyersWhen I was a barrister, I thought very highly of the following aviation specialists.

Solicitors:
Ian Clark at Clark Ricketts LLP - A former RAF fighter pilot and QFI. Hon Legal Advisor to the British Helicopter Advisory Board and the British Business and General Aviation Association (formerly GAMTA).
Tim Scorer at Ince & Co - Owner/pilot for many years. Honorary Solicitor to GAPAN.
Clyde & Co's aviation department - Civil matters only.

Barristers: 'Horses for courses'
Civil cases
Robert Lawson - We were against each other in some cases and on the same side in others over the years. First class.
Tim Marland - He was my Junior in a few cases and I was always impressed.
'Criminal' cases
Stephen Spence - an excellent barrister and experienced owner/pilot. Honorary Legal advisor to the British Parachute Association. Some might say he had a good Pupil Master (as barristers' trainers/mentors used to be called); I couldn't possibly comment. ;)
I arranged for Stephen to do two cases of mine when I was unavailable, and he won them both. On my recommendation he also took over this case when I left the Bar:
http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/208990-aaib-investigation-leads-manslaughter-charges-update-prosecution-withdrawn.html


Expert Witnesses
Choice of expert witness is also very important. Again, it's 'horses for courses'.
I worked with several excellent experts over the years but the one who stood out, in both 'criminal' and civil cases, was Captain Jock Lowe.
Former Chief Pilot of BA, and an experienced and current owner/pilot. One of only two people ever to be both Master of the Guild of Air Pilots (GAPAN) and President of the Royal Aeronautical Socety.
I first met him when I was representing BA, and thereafter he became my first choice for airline and GA cases. A very clever man, extremely knowledgeable and with the gift of being able to explain technical matters in a way that non-aviators can understand, which is very important when giving evidence in Court.
I used to enjoy watching my opponents trying to get the better of him in cross-examination. No-one ever succeeded - not even a notoriously arrogant barrister who for some reason had an extremely high opinion of himself (an opinion not shared by the rest of us) and was confident that he could do so. Becoming increasingly frustrated, he eventually (and, for him, predictably) tried a very low ball. It backfired badly, ruining his client's case and making himself look very silly - to the great amusement and enormous delight of other aviation lawyers when the news quickly spread.

FL

Edited to correct an error.
I remembered that there was one other person who was both Master of GAPAN and President of the RAeS: Sir Sefton Brancker, who was among the 48 people killed in the R101 airship during its maiden voyage to India in 1930.

[vee-tail-1]

FL
Many thanks. :ok:

[JP1]

The one I found most intriguing was "Student pilot failing to act in accordance with his Instructor’s instructions"

I assume it was a solo flight. Can anyone shed any more light on the incident?

[JP1]

I assume that's a NO then ! (15 months later)

[IO540]

If the CAA won't tell you then one option to research these Magistrates' Court things is to google on some suitable phrases, hoping to uncover an article from the online version of some local newspaper. The local rags usually carry court cases. Often the reporting is of a crap standard (this is where beginner journo hacks start their careers) but it is better than nothing.

However, the online articles tend to disappear after some time period and the only option then is to visit the local paper(s) and go through their past issue archives.

Probably not worth the bother unless it is something personally important.

A google on the exact phrase (entered in quotes) turns up only the pprune thread, and this (http://forums.bmaa.org/default.aspx?f=15&m=78000&g=78204).

[NorthSouth]

Only one Class A (Heathrow) and one Class D (Harlow so presumably Stansted Zone) infringements in the 2009-2010 list (http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=503&pagetype=90&pageid=6484). Maybe the message about infringements is getting through?
NS

[Fuji Abound]

If the CAA won't tell you


If you are interested I suspect an application under the Freedom of Information Act will produce a great deal of information - I dont see the CAA could redact much of the information on the basis of the exemptions available under the Act and the CAA are a public authority.

[bookworm]

I'm interested by the "Fine £12000 Comp £5000" for "No Permit to Fly & Crossing international FIR boundary without filing a Flight Plan" which is the biggest penalty by quite a way. Anything to do with this (http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/376267-light-aircraft-down-off-essex-coast-3-june-2009-a.html) I wonder?

[IO540]

I immediately thought it was that Long-EZ case, too....

Never saw anything on the net about him getting done though.

[hatzflyer]

It was him, he got well stitched by the CAA but succesfully appealed.( He is a friend of mine).

[bookworm]

Can you comment on the appeal?

[hatzflyer]

Publicly only to say he won.

BTW it was a Verieze.

[twelveoclockhigh]

Presumably it was the level of the fine that he appealed against, rather than the conviction (since he pleaded guilty), do you know what it was reduced to?

[IO540]

It was the mother of all diversions allright :)

Who was his appeal lawyer?

[IO540]

Presumably it was the level of the fine that he appealed against, rather than the conviction (since he pleaded guilty), do you know what it was reduced to?The answer would be very interesting. I wonder if this has made the press in Switzerland...

It was him, he got well stitched by the CAA but succesfully appealed.

What did he get stitched for?

( He is a friend of mine).

There's a suprise :)

[dublinpilot]

Is the published fine, before or after the appeal?