This was a case that became compeletly out of proportion to what happened on the ground (or slightly above it). The most frightening thing was the way the CAA ran up costs which were then claimed from the unfortunate pilot. I say unfortinate because although he committed an offence, the punishment came in the form of the £5,000 fine. The £39,000 prosecution costs on top are punitive in the extreme. When a fine is imposed a Judge has regard to a defendant's means and ability to pay. When the CAA run up costs it seems to look upon it as a blank cheque.
It should have been apparent from the outset that the pilot was negligent in the very wide way in which the law defines the word (involving an honest mistake or momentary inadvertance) but this was not a case of recklessness. Had they charged him with negligence alone the case would probably have remained in the magistrate's court and the costs would have been substantially less.
The costs claimed by the CAA included the costs of the investigation (the hiring of helicopters to re-enact the incident, the hourly costs of in-house investigators already employed by the CAA and the costs of their other employees involved in the investigation/legal proceedings). There was also an outragious amount of money spent on their Barrister. The CAA originally employed a local criminal Barrister who would have done the case for a fraction of the amount charged by their eventual counsel. At some stage (and I have heard a rumour that it was after the defence had served copies of their experts reports which caused them to worry that their case was not as strong as it first seemed) the CAA moved the case to 'specialist aviation counsel' who charged a fee running into five figures. The interesting comparison is that in a criminal case the CPS claim the direct costs of the actual prosecution. The CAA equivalent is to charge for the wages of the police men, the petrol in the police car the leasing costs of the police car etc.
As to the conduct of the trial. The defence were happy for the witness statements of the unfortunate lady and her husband to be read to the jury. They did not require her to attend court or have to re-live the experience. The CAA and their counsel insisted on the lady giving evidence in person. Why? In order to attract the sympathy of the jury and lob some prejudice against the defendant. I have spoken to the experienced criminal Barrister who was first briefed to prosecute the case and asked him if he would have called her to give live evidence. His answer? No. He went on to give his opinion who might do it but on reflection I have edited his remarks.
I do not criticise the CAA for prosecuting because there was a clear case of negligence and an innocent lady suffered as a result. However I would criticise the manner in which both the case and the prosecution escalated.
What are the benefits to aviation at the end of the day? The image of aviation improved? Safety lessons learnt?