Gentlefolks
I do have the details, I will have the court transcripts in my hands next week, and I commend Walrus for his stand.
Clapton, you are remarkably well informed. To further assist your information, here is an interesting statistic about this VCA matter.
Prosecutions for violations of controlled airspace i.e., breaches of CAR 99AA(7) and/or CAR 100(1), (2) and/or (3)) in the years 2005 to 2008 for the full calendar years 2005, 2006 and 2007, and to 30 June 2008.
1 - i.e. ONE.
Estimated VCA during that period - based on CASA data of 2553 actual for 05 & 06 - 4468. Some of which were far more risky, and if you examine the CASA OAR study for Avalon where heavy PTO are at risk, rather than bird life in the Albury airspace where the 1 occurred - you will find at least one aircraft avoidance - but NO prosecutions.
On the maintenance release matter the CASA prosecution may have seemed less perverse had they prosecuted the pilot also - given he caused the damage and was PIC at the time of the damage.
Certainly, as Clapton points out in his defence of the regulator, there was plea bargaining that created the plea of guilty for the three residual charges. Certainly, also, an expert legal opinion noted afterward that "dismissal of a charge found proven (whether after a contest or upon a plea of guilty) is a result not commonly achieved". Perhaps the judge saw something in this prosecution that made his question the odds?
I am researching this for a further investigation; I am a researcher not a lawyer, I don't intend to share the material (sorry XXX) and I don't intend to debate the facts I have provided.
I continue to find Submission 47 an interesting story - perhaps because I realise the 'fiction' may occur in either party, and particularly when I note the parallels to this matter. Just my opinion.
While I continue to work on researching the matter, I am certain a discussion hereon on probability theory will find good reason why CASA proceeded to prosecute this matter.
After all, odds of 1 in 4468 are something we find every day - no?