Wonder if this would stand up in a court of law......
I should perhaps have been a bit clearer on this. What I meant is the following hypothetical scenario: Pilot XYZ on a CAA issued JAR license flies his a/c across, say, France, VFR on (or over the) top. Lands in VMC. Gets ramp-checked, inspector says 'you can't have arrived here while maintaining VMC and sight of the surface, bacause the wx on your route was not VMC' and prosecutes. Pilot argues that he's been trained to the same standards as other JAR PPL holders who are legit to fly VFR on top, so he should not be prosecuted. Case goes to court - would the CAA stance stand up ??