It's interesting to see the different views held by various people about these prosecutions. But I'm a bit ambivalent on the topic.
Personally I take the view that I may not agree with the rules, I may not understand what the rules are supposed to achieve, but I try to follow them - because they're the rules. If I make that effort and others patently don't, then I shed no tears for those others who are caught and taken through the judicial system. On the other hand, if someone makes a genuine mistake and finds themselves in breach of the rules and then does whatever they can to remedy the situation, there seems less justification to me for the matter to end up in court. But, as has been pointed out before, the list which has prompted this discussion provides only very limited information and gives only the barest hints about the attitude of those involved, which may well sway the decision to prosecute.
One thing that does concern me, however, is that in at least one instance the list suggests that the CAA department dealing with these things is either rather relaxed with their terminology or are not aware of the rules that they are enforcing. For a department dealing with the law and and its prosecution neither situation is acceptable in my view. The case in question is CAA-v-Barke (on page 10) where there are references to the aircraft being 'given clearance to take-off' and the pilot failing to ask for clearance - from an air/ground radio operator. This caught my eye because it's my main area of activity these days but I wonder how many other similar inaccuracies or issues of concern are glossed over regarding the operation of aircraft which is the cause of most, if not all, of the cases. If the CAA is going to be so cavalier in their language describing the law that they are supposed to uphold, surely they can't be surprised when others interpret the law with similar approximations.