Guanty. Long time no chat!
I’m afraid the writing’s on the wall (and in the regs): you’re not going to get strict liability removed from the regs. Have a look at the regulations at the link above. The only thing that’s happened while AOPA’s been arguing to have strict liability removed is that the government has reinforced it!
Nonetheless, I look forward to seeing the detail of AOPA’s argument, and to understanding the way in which AOPA says the car driving analogy supports a shift from the current regulatory regime.
On the occasions on which I have been fined for speeding, the accumulation of which fines at one point lead to a ‘show cause’ on my licence, I don’t recall any judge being involved, and I don’t recall the “I’m innocent until you’ve proved me guilty” argument getting very far. Indeed, I think the response to that argument entailed sex and travel.
I could have elected to contest the matters in court, but as they were strict liability offences all the policeman had to was tell her, and her radar’s, story. Game over, unless you want to commit perjury. By the way, the law requires judges to take judicial notice of the accuracy of police speed measuring devices, and if you want to challenge the reading, you have to tell the other side before the hearing and you have to pay the other side’s (very expensive) expert’s costs if you lose.
There seems to be a naïve view among some in the aviation community to the effect that electing to be prosecuted is a no-risk holiday watching the prosecution trying to discharge an impossible evidential burden. Ask any lawyer about the rule in Jones v Dunkel. And then ask her about how serious the crime of perjury is.