David
He reminds me of those Japanese soldiers who carried on in the jungle, thinking that WW2 has not yet ended. I am sure the CAA would have done him with a 4/5-figure fine+costs.
However, that article is a misleading representation re safety issues. He was not an A&P so he could not do Annuals, ADs, etc, but he could (and obviously did, otherwise the plane would not have gone on for those years) pilot maintenance.
Great many engines on the CAA Private G-reg fleet have not had their crankcases opened for 20-30 years. If the compression checks, it's OK.
So, the difference is the Annual. What is special about an Annual? It's just a load of extra stuff to check, lubricate, etc. There are ADs to do but on an old simple plane there are unlikely to be many that are safety critical.
So, it's quite possible that this plane was in reality in exactly the same safety condition as if it has been to a maintenance shop every year, etc. It's perfectly possible for a reasonably mechanically minded person to maintain a simple plane to the same actual level as regulation requires and he would probably do a better job of it (it's just illegal).
Back to the subject, is there some ICAO provision for shifting the prosecution to the country of registry? The ICAO docs are
online but not searchable.