Draco's guess was right.
I'm restricted in how much I can say about this case at the moment. As you've read, the Defendant still faces a CAA investigation.
And yes, it was very tempting to "keep below the parapet" on this one but it would be wrong of me not to correct some points made so far. Also, the press report isn't entirely accurate.
- The Judge did not stop or 'drop' the case.
- The defendant faced 6 different charges. During legal argument at the beginning of the trial, the Prosecution had to concede that they simply did not have the evidence to support 5 of them. To succeed, they would have to prove that the Defendant was to be paid (ie a "pecuniary advantage") for the operational flights he performed. Closer examination of the evidence confirmed the Defence argument: There was no agreement that he was ever going to receive payment for those flights, therefore he had not obtained a pecuniary advantage. The Prosecution conceded the point and Not Guilty verdicts were recorded.
- The Prosecution then applied to add a completely new charge to the indictment namely that he had dishonestly obtained 'services' (training) by deception. The Judge was agreeable in principle to this application. However, we argued the new charge was based upon a misinterpretation of the relevant law which requires there to have been an agreement or understanding that the services obtained would be paid for. After further legal argument, the Prosecution again conceded that was correct, and that they could not prove this essential element of the offence because there was no agreement that he would pay for his training. The Prosecution withdrew the application to add the new charge.
- That left one charge remaining. At our request, the Judge asked the Prosecution to say precisely how it put the case on the one remaining charge. This is not unusual; the Defence are entitled to know what case they are answering. When it was explained, the Judge invited the Prosecution to reconsider whether there was a realistic prospect of any jury convicting on the available evidence. Having done so, the Prosecution did not proceed.
- There was no evidence or allegation by any prosecution witness from the ASU that the Defendant had produced a forged, altered or photocopied ATPL.
As to that last remaining charge, the Prosecution was realistic in concluding the chances of a conviction were extremely remote: The Defendant's case was that he only put in a job application because he'd then be allowed to fly with the Unit as 'training' whilst his application was being considered, and he always realised he could never be offered the job unless he produced his ATPL etc.
To obtain a conviction, the Prosecution would have to prove that the Defendant was actually offered the job/contract. They overlooked the fact that he was not. He was told that, subject to production of his ATPL, flying records, satisfactory references from previous employers, and getting through Police security vetting etc, if everything was in order, he would then be offered a contract. He withdrew his application, was not offered the contract, therefore did not obtain a pecuniary advantage. (If he had been offered the contract, the offence would have been complete at that point. Withdrawing later would be mitigation, but not a defence.)
In theory, the Prosecution could have alleged an attempt to obtain the job. However, on the facts of this particular case, they would then have to prove he was actually attempting to obtain the job (rather than free rides and training) without being able to provide any of the items referred to above. Dishonest he may have been, complete fool he clearly is not.
If I couldn't secure an acquittal on that remaining charge in those circumstances, I'd think it was time to hang up my wig and gown and apply for a job with the CAA. (Not that they'd have me!
)
The Prosecution was informed some months ago that the Defendant did not dispute anything said by the ASU personnel. It was agreed that the CV he submittedwith his job application was almost entirely fantasy. The sole issue was whether the evidence proved the charges brought.
We saw there were fatal flaws in the Prosecution case, but it's not the Defence role to help the Prosecution. The law on 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage' is notoriously difficult. It needs careful consideration, but it's not impossible.
Nor is it the Defence role to tell the police how to investigate properly.
The Defendant never denied he'd behaved thoroughly dishonestly, and very badly towards those who befriended him. He issued a statement of apology to the ASU for all the trouble he'd caused them, explaining that what started as silly boasting got completely out of hand over many months. He volunteered to pay the cost of the traing flights he was given. On legal advice, he pleaded Not Guilty for the very good reason that he wasn't guilty of the criminal offences brought against him.
The Court process worked properly and fairly. No defendant ever has to prove his innocence. The Prosecution bring charges and therefore have the burden of proving them. If they bring the wrong charges, or don't have the necessary evidence, they fail.
As to the investigating and prosecuting process, I say only that I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the CID officers who carried out the investigation find themselves back in uniform directing traffic if the Chief Constable reviews this case. The CPS should have spotted the problems when deciding the appropriate charges but, as I've said, that particular offence has frequently caused problems.
Note: I have responded with the consent of the Defendant and my instructing solicitor. The comments are mine. They didn't ask to see and approve them.
Tudor Owen