If you dig deep enough, you may find that "Strict Liability" is not of CASA's making.
601,
Strict Liability offenses are certainly not a CASA invention, but the type of offenses that are categorized as strict liability are within CASA control, and the type of offenses CASA so categorizes are very different to much other Commonwealth legislation.
Indeed, in legal theory (and A-G's guidelines for regulations) any offense where there is a mental element ( say a decision by a pilot or LAME) CANNOT be a strict liability offense, but we have them in the CARs.
Forget blaming OLDP for the way the new regulations are turning out, OLDP (Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing) works for its "clients", ie; CASA writes the drafting instructions, the regulations are the way they are, because that's the way CASA wants them.
Given how different the "touch and feel" of CASA regulations are, compared to so much else Commonwealth regulation, also written by OLDP, that it is disingenuous, to say the very least, to blame A-Gs.
It took six years, or there abouts, for the CAO 29.2 to see the light of day again. CASA FOI's were constantly reminded about the problem, but the feedback we got was that it was a legal drafting problem. CASA wanted it but what CASA want is not necessarily what CASA get.
Pure, unadulterated bollocks ----- CAOs are written within CASA, and were in CAA etc.
Tootle pip!!
See attached extract from CASA Aviation Ruling 3/2003
Sorry, folks, said ruling has been superseded by court decisions, as a result of CASA prosecution. 3/2003 never was worth the paper it was written on.