The correct answer to the scenario/question posed by
ILS 119.5 is the one given by
Finals 3 Greens.
___________
bjcc Your answers are wrong in several respects.
eg It's not logical to assume that because two Acts of Parliament contain similar provisions, specific provisions not present in one will apply to the other.
It's not a matter of "testing". If something is ambiguous or capable of being read in more than one way, the Court of Appeal may be asked to give its interpretation. If the provisions aren't there, there's nothing to interpret/test.
There are usually reasons for differences between similar Acts, and there's a very simple reason in this instance - see my final point below.
eg "Special circumstances"? I assume you mean either 'special reasons' or 'mitigating circumstances'. They are different things in law.
eg Neither of them fall to be considered until
after conviction. The question was whether a pilot who flew in emergency circumstances would be prosecuted.
(Edited)
eg It seems from your further post that you mean 'special reasons'. They are irrelevant to drink/fly offences. If a
motorist is convicted of an offence involving obligatory disqualification (eg drink driving) the court
must disqualify him for not less than twelve months
unless there are "special reasons" to disqualify for a shorter period or not at all.
However, as there is no power to disqualify pilots from flying under the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, there's no need for 'special reasons' provisions - and nothing to "test."
Please don't take offence, but it would reduce the risk of people being misled if you prefaced posts in which you give your understanding of the law with
"I think ......" or
"As I understand it ......" That's what most non-lawyers on PPRuNe do. I do the same thing unless I know with certainty what I'm saying about the law is correct. If it's not my field and I'm trying to remember things I learned years ago, or making an educated guess, I say so as a 'Health Warning'.
It would certainly mean less work for me if you did that.
I sometimes let your misunderstandings of the law pass without comment, but there are times when I feel obliged to correct them in case others are misled by what you say.