Originally Posted by
Zombywoof
I quoted directly from the posted article...
Yes, and while it may be a very good article it's still a journalist's interpretation, not the actual court decision which might well have given further detail.
While I don't want to get too far away from the theme of this thread I just read something about Capt Stewart's case from someone whose opinion I respect. His comments were:
"
I have discussed the case with two people (separately), one of whom was very senior in BA and the other very senior in the CAA at the relevant time. They both thought the prosecution was justified because Captain Stewart wouldn't admit what he had done was wrong. Although I have enormous respect for both of them, I was unpersuaded that it was a good reason. Why should he if he didn't think he had? Even if convicted (which he was), it was very unlikely to change his view.
That case may (I don't know) have been an illustration of the problems caused by the risk of prosecution. I do know from experience that pilots under criminal investigation and at risk of being prosecuted are, understandably and reasonably, cautious about what they say. An open discussion from which things may be learnt can only take place if there is no risk of prosecution. There is a very real risk that prosecuting does little or nothing to enhance flight safety, and can have precisely the opposite effect." (FL,
PPrune 6th Jan 2007, 20:32).
In addition to those comments
this article discusses prosecuting pilots, with particular reference to Capt Stewart's case. Neither give further insight into the judge's reasoning on the decision itself, but that's really an aside from the main issue (to me) of injustice, individual pilot health, and the general health of the aviation community.
FP.