It's interesting that people are so hung up on Strict Liability but have no problem with the CASA guidance for ramp checks. Strict liability is no big deal and we deal with it every day e.g. traffic laws, but the CASA ramp check guidance that says we need to provide weight and balance, fuel calculations etc. for the previous flight is an issue. It is like the police pulling you over for a license check and asking to see your dashcam footage and GPS logs to verify that you stopped at all stop signs and weren't speeding.
I have no problem with a ramp check asking for license, medical, airworthiness certificate etc., but asking for calculations from your previous flight is without doubt investigating whether you have committed an offence and asking you to volunteer the evidence. It doesn't matter how friendly they are or how much they assure you they are only doing it for education, if CASA won't accept your assurance that you complied with regulations they are operating with an assumption that you did commit an offence.
Even if you haven't committed an offence, the rules and calculations can be technical and you don't want to be arguing them under the wing.
- Maybe the FOI has had a long day and makes an error in their mental arithmetic
- Maybe you flight planned at 55% power to avoid an extra fuel stop, but the FOI flies the same type and believes you should have used a higher fuel burn
- Maybe your new girlfriend lied about their weight
- Maybe your EFB software has a bug where it used incorrect winds and you really did land with less than the required amount of fuel
What Strict Liability means is that, like speeding, your only real defense is if they can't prove that it happened. It might be unwise to provide evidence that could prove the offence without taking legal advice first.