Originally Posted by
404 Titan
Leadslead,
I appreciate you have had serious issues with CASA in the past but I can assure you my dealing with them aren't because I'm "lucky". It's because I worked with them, including when we disagreed. Yes there have been abuses of Strict Liability and maybe that's grounds for another Royal Commission, not the party political talk fests that are Senate Enquires but I'm a firm believer in Strict Liability law for areas of law that involve public safety as long as they are used appropriately and not abused. I vehemently disagree with you regarding FFR and some of the posts here and the other thread reinforce my opinion.
404 Titan,
Let me be very clear, it is not "me" who has had the problems with CASA over the years, but the countless people I have assisted/represented, over longer than I care to remember, who have become embroiled with CASA and its predecessors. Enough that it is statistically significant, and very unfavorably compared to other national jurisdictions.
As for "believing" in strict liability, that is not the issue, it is the manner in which it is used in aviation legislation in Australia that is the problem. Use of the strict liability classification of an offence in secondary aviation legislation in Australia has and continues to defy just about every guideline ever published, starting with the ALRC report, "Securing Compliance", which originally recommended all Commonwealth secondary legislation clearly spell out the gravity of the offence and the penalty, to every guideline published by the Attorney-Generals, Senate Standing Committee on Scrutiny of Bills and Ordinances (or whatever it is currently called), OBPR and I could go on.
As for FRF (FFR) let me be clear, I understand what it is for, how the concept came about, what "order of accuracy" means in engineering terms, and why it is not to be considered as usable fuel. I have effectively observed it, long before it got a name. As for "it" being a strict liability offence, for multiple reasons, I am of the view that is contrary to the various guidelines mentioned in the previous para.,
but above all else, there is mens rea applicable, where mens rea is involved, it cannot fairly be a strict liability criminal offense.
Tootle pip!!