Unless DJ stole the aircraft or was expressly forbidden by the aircraft owner and operator from conducting the flight that ended in the ditching, I don’t see how s97A(2) has any relevance to the circumstances.
(3) The owner, operator, hirer (not being the Crown) or pilot of an aircraft commits an offence if he or she:
(a) operates the aircraft or permits the aircraft to be operated; and
(b) the operation of the aircraft results in a contravention of subsection 20A(1).
Penalty: Imprisonment for 5 years.
(4) Strict liability applies to paragraph (3)(b).
Was DJ permitted by the owner and operator of the aircraft to fly it in fact? If the answer is yes, that’s a tick against them and DJ under 29(3)(a).
Did the operation of the aircraft result in a contravention of subsection 20A(1)? If the answer is, as alleged by CASA, a ‘yes’, that’s a tick against 29(3)(b).
Strict liability applies to 29(3)(b). That is, the owner and operator etc do not have to know or intend that the operation of the aircraft resulted in a contravention of 20A(1).
How does 97A(2) make any difference? We are not trying to attribute any of DJ’s actions to a corporate entity. We are not trying to say DJ permitted himself to operate the aircraft and that that permission constituted the permission of the owner and operator of the aircraft in terms of 29(3)(a). The owner and operator gave their own permission.
Can we at least agree that section 20A does not create an offence?