The CAA have just published their annual review of CAA prosecutions.
The interesting feature of it appears to be the number of errors or misleading entries.
There was a conviction under article 26 of the Air Navigation Order for “Aircraft Flying over a fishing boat”. Article 26 refers to “Members of flight crew – requirement for a licence”. Is there a type rating or endorsement for flying over a fishing boat? If so I better get one for my occasional cross-channel forays.
Another licence offence resulted in the defendant being released after two weeks imprisonment although according to the table he was only sentenced to 200 hours Community Service. Did the prison release him/her only after they realised their mistake?
An entry for invalid AOC at Southwark Crown Court suggests that the defendant pleaded not guilty but was found guilty and fined £5,000 for the offence. In fact the defendant pleaded guilty at the Magistrates Court. There were two offences and the fine was £2,500 per offence. This latter might appear to be a distinction without a difference but the table is sometimes used to give guidance as to the level of penalty imposed in such cases and a future court could be led to believe that the level of fine ought to be £5,000 per offence.
An entry for Blackpool Magistrates shows a defendant pleading not guilty to flying with an expired C of A but being found guilty and being fined £5,000 with £7,000 costs. If it’s the case I’m thinking of the defendant appealed to the Crown Court where he was found not guilty, the fine and costs order was quashed and the successful appellant received his costs from central funds.
Let’s hope the other entries are more accurate – unless of course you know different.
