There was quite a high profile one last year based around Booker.
A flying instructor at BAFC was prosecuted for low flying after complaints from some local residents. It turned out that the necessary three or four independent witnesses all estimated that the aircraft was exactly the same height above their house (some 35 feet, I think!) and described the high-winged aircraft in some detail. In fact in exactly the same detail! Trouble was that BAFC only operate Piper aircraft...
The case was dismissed and it turns out that the instigator of the prosecution was allegedly a vigorous anti-noise campaigner who had allegedly heard that in order to get a conviction for low flying it had to be corroborated by a number of independent witnesses. Strange, then, that they should all have made exactly the same error regarding the placing ofthe wings on the subject aircraft.
What surprised many was that the Court or the CAA, having brought the prosecution, did not then decide to recover some of their costs by charging the instigators of the case with what would appear to be perjury or attempt to pervert the cause of justice. They seemed keen enough to proceed on the case which should have been glaringly obvious to their inspector to be fabricated.
Flyer and Pilot magazines carried a comment in their pages at the time (Summer 2001, I think.)
Before anybody jumps up and down about potential libel, I would point out that the salient points of this case have already been published elsewhere and it is hearsay, anyway. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">