Cloudee, Pixie,
To be precise, definitions of strict liability for Commonwealth legislative purposes is found in the relevant section of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. The tests of "honest and reasonable mistake" are very high tests, effectively resulting from something completely beyond the knowledge and/or control of the pilot.
This does not preclude a regulation specifying a reverse onus of proof, and there are a number of cases in proposed aviation regulation where the draft regulation does, indeed, embody a reverse onus of proof. Hence the phraseology: " The pilot bears an evidential burden to ----"
Strange as it obviously is, to some if you, I am actually familiar with quite a few AFM/POH by whatever name, having been variously an instructor (in several different countries), school CFI and (what is now) ATO. Not to mention a bit further up the food chain.
So, let me ask you, how many of those figures for, say, 1500', specify whether it is rich mixture, leaned ROP or leaned LOP. Or at what variations in RPM and boost. At what ISA temperature?
Take a Lycoming IO-540 --- for any power setting at say, 65% power (is that normal cruise??) I can show you legal power settings that will vary the fuel flow by over 25% --- all perfectly legal, and straight out of the engine manufacturer's handbook for the engine, but those detailed figures have never appeared in the AIM/POH of any airframe I have seen, just a few "good enough" guidelines ---- and I remind you, not the whole contents of an AFM/POH is "certified" information.
For that engine, there is a huge difference between 65% at say, 2400 or higher rpm, and full rich, and 2100 RPM LOP.
For any airframe/engine/prop combination, there will be significant variations, depending on the condition of the aircraft, among nominally identical fleets.
So, pray tell, what is the "legally correct" fuel flow in terms of the draft regulation and the CAAP. The CAAP, (which is actually one of the more reasonable CAAPs), does not adequately define, because it can't (and even if it did, it has no legally enforceable meaning) how to arrive at 30 minutes of fuel, to a criminal standard of proof. A CAAP is a means of compliance, but not the only means of compliance.
And it is exactly this sort of arcane legal minutiae that actions devolve to in criminal court proceeding.
For those of you who doubt the last paragraph, all your doubt proves is your lack of knowledge and experience.
Tootle pip!!