I find it interesting to compare "strict liability" to how sharia law is implemented in some countries.
Such as, (to paraphrase according to CASA): "A woman must not engage in sexual activity outside of marriage. This is a clause of strict liability".
So if a woman is raped, and confesses, under strict liability she is guilty of the offence. Intent does not come into it. She is automatically guilty. All she can hope for now is empathy from the courts, she has no "legal" defense.
That's "strict liability" for you.
To put it back on topic, if you take off at 42C (and you know it's safe because whatever), but it's outside of your charts, and you encounter unpredictable windshear on departure that causes an accident, where is the burden of proof that you caused the accident?
CASA could claim the temperature caused the accident. Yes the burden of proof is on CASA that you took of at 42C, but that would be easy to prove, and as it's a clause of strict liability you are now liable. The burden of proof of the windshear is now on you. So yes, you are now guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent, which may not be easy.
Disclaimer: not a lawyer. And yes LB, of course the DPP takes on all prosecutions, as always, but they do so on behalf of CASA, using CASA's evidence, CASA's regs and CASA's desire to prosecute.
Last edited by Derfred; 15th Apr 2017 at 19:37.