It strikes me that without a definite height the CAA surely can't prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. Does "reasonable doubt" remain the standard for this type of conviction?
And the suggestion by the CAA that the transponder " had not been switched to the correct mode" is ludicrous. They should know better - while we all should use Mode C if it is available, it isn't a legal requirement then he shouldn't be accused of using it incorrectly in a court. I hope that either there is some severe journalistic licence being used here, or that the defending solicitor rips this statement to pieces.
Of course, within the flying fraternity I would like to ask why Mode C wasn't selected if he had nothing to hide? Was it just inop, no Alt Encoder perhaps? Who knows, but one expects the CAA to be at least accurate!