Reckless flying charge for pilot who ditched ultra-light plane in Bass Strait
Folks,
I still don't know what the circumstances are, that give rise to a charge of recklessness --- which is not a strict liability offense, the poor sod is in for a full on jury trial in Supreme Court ---- with jail as a possible, even likely, penalty, if he is found guilty.
It is not the drinking allegation, that is a regulatory matter, and by the sound of it a pretty alleged technical breach, for which, I understand rather third hand, there is credible defense.
Do any of you here know what the alleged actions were, to generate such a savage reaction from the "model litigant".
Tootle pip!!
I still don't know what the circumstances are, that give rise to a charge of recklessness --- which is not a strict liability offense, the poor sod is in for a full on jury trial in Supreme Court ---- with jail as a possible, even likely, penalty, if he is found guilty.
It is not the drinking allegation, that is a regulatory matter, and by the sound of it a pretty alleged technical breach, for which, I understand rather third hand, there is credible defense.
Do any of you here know what the alleged actions were, to generate such a savage reaction from the "model litigant".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled, the incident? occurred in 2013, so like you am wondering why charges are being laid now.
Reckless flying may be difficult to gain a conviction - now that I understand what actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means
Have finally (well I think so
) deciphered the difference between absolute and strict liability
In Victoria: Offences under s 49(1)(f) of the Road Safety Act 1986 are absolute liability offences. The assertion of a claim of honest and reasonable mistake has no effect against such a charge
Where as:In NSW, drink-driving is an offence of strict liability. Defences of honest and reasonable mistake are available, and sometimes successful. In DPP v Bone [2005] NSWSC 1239, the accused was found not guilty of drink-driving charges after convincing a magistrate that his beer had been spiked with vodka without his knowledge.
The strict liability offences we are hammered with, have the same defences of an honest and reasonable mistake,I have been told we have one other called external force, although that would have a legal term.
Go here if interested quis custodiet ipsos custodes: Drinking & driving - no honest and reasonable mistake
In English: Who Guards the Guards
Edit: A random thought: I thought it was the DPP that decided if an offence had been committed, and whether it would succeed at trial ?
Reckless flying may be difficult to gain a conviction - now that I understand what actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea means
Have finally (well I think so
) deciphered the difference between absolute and strict liabilityIn Victoria: Offences under s 49(1)(f) of the Road Safety Act 1986 are absolute liability offences. The assertion of a claim of honest and reasonable mistake has no effect against such a charge
Where as:In NSW, drink-driving is an offence of strict liability. Defences of honest and reasonable mistake are available, and sometimes successful. In DPP v Bone [2005] NSWSC 1239, the accused was found not guilty of drink-driving charges after convincing a magistrate that his beer had been spiked with vodka without his knowledge.
The strict liability offences we are hammered with, have the same defences of an honest and reasonable mistake,I have been told we have one other called external force, although that would have a legal term.
Go here if interested quis custodiet ipsos custodes: Drinking & driving - no honest and reasonable mistake
In English: Who Guards the Guards
Edit: A random thought: I thought it was the DPP that decided if an offence had been committed, and whether it would succeed at trial ?
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 20th Dec 2015 at 10:38. Reason: more
Aah,,,but...
the CDPP may well be given a brief from CASA and asked to peruse and take to court, which they will do if they believe CAsA.s spiel stacks up.
In the Quadrio case the CDPP declined..not happy with the CAsA "evidence"/crap.
But in other cases the CDPP does not know if what CAsA presents to them is true or not...they dont do investigations to find out one way or the other.
Guess they take what CAsA presents in good faith...and if it goes t*ts up, no worries, the intended victim maybe broke by now , having had to defend him/herself for no good reason, so CAsA will be well pleased anyway.
And if CAsA is interested to know why the case failed they'll have a '****ewash' to prove that they have done no wrong.
Next ! New debacle upcoming.
In the Quadrio case the CDPP declined..not happy with the CAsA "evidence"/crap.
But in other cases the CDPP does not know if what CAsA presents to them is true or not...they dont do investigations to find out one way or the other.
Guess they take what CAsA presents in good faith...and if it goes t*ts up, no worries, the intended victim maybe broke by now , having had to defend him/herself for no good reason, so CAsA will be well pleased anyway.
And if CAsA is interested to know why the case failed they'll have a '****ewash' to prove that they have done no wrong.
Next ! New debacle upcoming.
Eddie,
To my mind, the best explanation of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability can be found in Australian Law Reform Commission sources.
However, that is not an issue here.
Speaking of Absolute Liability, last time I looked most of the offenses under the various state "damages by aircraft" legislation is absolute liability, a sobering thought if you have a bingle, and don't have adequate insurance.
Despite now five pages on this thread, I am none the wiser as to what this poor sod did (if anything) that warrants a charge of recklessness.
Tootle pip!!
To my mind, the best explanation of Strict Liability and Absolute Liability can be found in Australian Law Reform Commission sources.
However, that is not an issue here.
Speaking of Absolute Liability, last time I looked most of the offenses under the various state "damages by aircraft" legislation is absolute liability, a sobering thought if you have a bingle, and don't have adequate insurance.
Despite now five pages on this thread, I am none the wiser as to what this poor sod did (if anything) that warrants a charge of recklessness.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems that even the Courts sometimes blur the distinction between strict and absolute liability. See the discussion by Vincent J in Skase where HH held that s49(1)(f) of the Road Safety Act is one of strict liability but then held that a defence of mistake is not available.
http://www.magistratescases.com.au/L...0Liability.pdf At (m).
However, a Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee did a pretty fair job and correctly differentiated strict and absolute by acknowledging that mistake is a defence in strict liability but not absolute. It even made some recommendations which probably account for the boringly repetitious statement at the end of each CASR telling us the offence is one of strict liability.
Chapter 7 - Application of absolute and strict liability offences in Commonwealth legislation ? Parliament of Australia
CASA must have read that bit but not got as far as the bits about breaching fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence.
Kaz
http://www.magistratescases.com.au/L...0Liability.pdf At (m).
However, a Senate Scrutiny of Bills Committee did a pretty fair job and correctly differentiated strict and absolute by acknowledging that mistake is a defence in strict liability but not absolute. It even made some recommendations which probably account for the boringly repetitious statement at the end of each CASR telling us the offence is one of strict liability.
Chapter 7 - Application of absolute and strict liability offences in Commonwealth legislation ? Parliament of Australia
CASA must have read that bit but not got as far as the bits about breaching fundamental rights such as the presumption of innocence.
Kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 22nd Dec 2015 at 09:59.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite now five pages on this thread, I am none the wiser as to what this poor sod did (if anything) that warrants a charge of recklessness.
It tends to be a catchall when there is no specific offence that covers the situation, like eating your chips with one hand, the burger with the other and steering the car with your knees.
Well, that is a bit of an extreme example but hopefully you get my drift.
Perhaps this offence of Reckless Flying is similar?
However, this thread is a thread, if you thought you would find the nuts and bolts of what occurred, you are probably looking in the wrong place. The Prosecution (CASA) are not about to outline their case here, nor would the Defence outline their stance.
To state the obvious...this is just a rumour network...
I guess you may have to be a touch patient and wait for the ACTUAL court case.
From then, all can discuss the rights and wrongs of both the case, and whatever the court decision is, but with at least with information from a factual source.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem for RAA pilots flying under the CAO 95.55 is that any breach of a condition of the CAO, including a failure to comply with the Operations or Technical Manuals, means the exemption under the CARs granted to them no longer apply. This opens them to a plethora of charges that have nothing to do with the substantive offence.
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00228
3 Exemptions under regulation 11.160
3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988.....
This seems quite brutal to me as the law becomes a scattergun blasting away at everything rather than neatly drilling the target.
Kaz
https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2015L00228
3 Exemptions under regulation 11.160
3.1 If the conditions set out in this Order are complied with, in relation to an aeroplane to which this Order applies, the aeroplane is exempt from compliance with the following provisions of CAR 1988.....
This seems quite brutal to me as the law becomes a scattergun blasting away at everything rather than neatly drilling the target.
Kaz
Square Bear,
Recklessness has a fairly well defined meaning in law, and is far more serious than such as "carelessness" in motor traffic act/regulations.
Kaz3G,
Quite a long time ago now, Paul Phelan did an extensive piece of research on the application (and the limitations of imposing) strict liability, including all the then current legislative guidelines, and the various bodies creating the guidelines. He had substantial legal assistance.
One particular nono is "---- for administrative convenience".
"Honest and reasonable mistake" is a very high test, effectively the reason must be beyond your control.
Unsurprising, CASA completely ignores (and it is a CASA decision, not legislative drafters) all the guidelines, including unmaking offenses where there is an element of decision making discretion by the pilot in command, ie: was he/she/it legally visual at minima.
Tootle pip!!
Recklessness has a fairly well defined meaning in law, and is far more serious than such as "carelessness" in motor traffic act/regulations.
Kaz3G,
Quite a long time ago now, Paul Phelan did an extensive piece of research on the application (and the limitations of imposing) strict liability, including all the then current legislative guidelines, and the various bodies creating the guidelines. He had substantial legal assistance.
One particular nono is "---- for administrative convenience".
"Honest and reasonable mistake" is a very high test, effectively the reason must be beyond your control.
Unsurprising, CASA completely ignores (and it is a CASA decision, not legislative drafters) all the guidelines, including unmaking offenses where there is an element of decision making discretion by the pilot in command, ie: was he/she/it legally visual at minima.
Tootle pip!!
