No offence intended to you FGD135, but the quaint notion that the courts have some sort of "innocent until proven guilty" basis, is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Bankstown Boy,
You are way off the mark. You seem to be saying that CASA can drag you to court because they THINK you have done something wrong, and you then have to prove otherwise.
That is ridiculous. Have a look at this:
Importantly, however, strict liability does not reverse the burden of proof, and there are no provisions in any CASA legislation (current or proposed) that do so. ‘Every element of a strict liability offence must be proven by the prosecutor, and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not and has never been the case that the defendant must prove that they did not commit the offence.’
That quote was taken from this document:
Strictly liable, fairly enforced | Flight Safety Australia
But of course, if you have gone off the end of the runway, and this is the reason you are in court, then the proof is self-evident and it will be nigh on impossible for you to prove otherwise! All of this just illustrates the simple point that JT made:
(a) Rule 1. Don't crash