I have great respect for your technical expertise re microlights/light aircraft but, entirely understandably, your knowledge of the law and legal process is very limited.
On this occasion, you have misunderstand the Maule case. (So has Step Turn.)
I hope it goes rather beyond light aircraft, and always did - I just tend to talk about light aircraft more here.
But, could you explain in a bit more detail than I've seen already about the Maule?
My understanding is that the pilot had been working up to this, for his own reasons that some of us might feel were a bit silly, but nonetheless made good sense to him. So, he therefore was able to do this safely (as demonstrated by his not crashing) and without endangering anybody else (as demonstrated by his doing it in the middle of a lake, in his own aeroplane, with nobody else on board). So, a judge decided to not permit the case to be taken forwards as there was no significant evidence that a crime was committed.
If my understanding is incorrect - what am I missing? You could explain rather than simply say that some of us don't understand the topic enough.
G