CAA prosecutions summary 07/08

[Flying Lawyer]

I was instructed to defend in the 4 matters below.
The Stafford and Bournemouth trials were taken over by barrister (and PPL) Stephen Spence when I became unavailable.


Stafford Magistrates Court
Prosecution of a microlight pilot for Endangering person/property (Article 64) following an accident during attempted go-around.
Pilot found Not Guilty and awarded Defence Costs.


Chatham Magistrates Court
“Dangerous low flying under motorway bridge. Guilty Plea.”
That is a distortion of the case.
The true facts:
Microlight pilot flew under the Medway bridge. ie Under the road bridge over the River Medway.
He was was prosecuted for Endangering aircraft (Art 73), Endangering person/ property(Art 74) & breach of Rule 5 (2)(b).
He pleaded Not Guilty to both Endangering charges, and Guilty only to breaching the 500 feet provision in Rule 5 - which does not contain a 'dangerous' element.
There is no such offence as "dangerous low flying".
The CAA dropped both Endangering charges.
Wisely IMHO. Any pilot familiar with the relative sizes of a microlight and the Medway bridge will understand why the endangering charges were denied.


Bournemouth Crown Court
Interesting that the CAA record it as “Found Guilty of Article 8. Found Not Guilty of endangering.”
The CAA prosecuted the pilot of corporate jet for Endangering aircraft (Article 63) and Endangering person/property on the ground (Article 64). That was what the prosecution was about.
However, during the course of the trial, the CAA was allowed to add an additional offence of flying without a valid CofA. (Rendered invalid by a defect.)
The CAA lost both Endangering counts.
The pilot was convicted only of the additional, and far less serious, offence.


Newport (Isle of Wight)
Pilot prosecuted for alleged low flying (500 feet provision Rule 5) in a Hunter.
Pilot found Not Guilty and awarded Defence costs.


Is there a pattern?

• Look at the CAA's low success rate in contested cases.
• Look at the high percentage of Guilty pleas. Pilots plead Guily for many reasons. The two main reasons (in my experience at the Bar) are either that they have no defence or that they have a good defence but are afraid of the large sums they may be ordered to pay the CAA in prosecution costs if they fight the case and lose.

TheOddOne

It seems the Crown Court backed up both the Magistrate's court and the CAA's view that this case was worth persuing.

No. That does not follow.
Courts decide whether an alleged offence is proved. They are required to apply the law; they have no power to decide if a case is 'worth pursuing.'

It seems the CAA only use the courts as a last resort to ensure compliance with rules placed for everyone's safety.

That is a claim often made by the CAA.
It was not my experience of many years involved in CAA cases when I was a barrister.


FL