I was going to make the same point but I took the Miss Approaches to the pub for lunch and FL has beaten me to it.
As usual FL's point is well made.
The role of prosecuting and defence counsel are quite different. Whilst the job of defence counsel is to fearlessly defend his client and put forward his client's instructions however bizarre or ludicrous they may appear, the Bar's code of conduct makes it quite plain that prosecuting counsel should see themselves as a minister of justice and therefore under an obligation to see that justice is done as opposed to securing a conviction at all costs.
One of the strange paradox's in this case is that the CAA's allegation of recklessnes involved the pilot making an approach to the Hotel without circling or carrying out a recce pass first. The course he adopted was to make a relatively quick approach minimising noise to the occupants and locality. The jury then hear about wealthy businessman, 22 year old female passenger etc.
Wouldn't 99% of flash g**'s picking up a bit of totty have used the opportunity of a recce circuit to whazz the place and impress the bird?
Of course if you were a sensible pilot, sensitive to noise complaints, largely using your helicopter for business and collecting an employee....
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Legalapproach ]</p>