Creamie, I try not to get involved with the minutia of legal proceedings these days but wouldn't any government (CASA) prosecution these days involve strict liability?
If so then the unsuccessful prosecution of the two QANTAS pilots for allegedly taking off at YMLT at night without the runway lights being on would be an example.
Another would be the legal hounding of the commercial operator and his chief pilot for taking off from a road in South Australia as the nearby airport was under water. The last of that case that I heard was that it was on its way to the High Court. Their names completely escapes me now.
Similarly, the prosecution of a private pilot in Tasmania in the late 1990s' for low flying would have been with strict liability applying. That was a successful prosecution.
The fact that an offence is one of strict liability does not mean that the prosecution has a hands-down winner. It still has to prove that the offence was committed and sometimes that proves very difficult indeed, even with witnesses.