Presumed Guilty!

[M14P]

Something has been playing on my mind for the last few weeks - in fact, ever since I received a phone call from the CAA Enforcement Division accusing me of low flying. I thought that I might share it with fellow Ppruners:

The call was brusque and information was being requested as to who was flying our group aircraft on a particular day etc etc. I was informed that a member of the public had 'seen that aircraft low flying over his property'.

I confirmed that I had flown twice that day so I was quite possibly the PIC but I assured the caller that I was never in contraventon of Rule 5 at any point in the flight. The man from the Ministry then informed me that the accusation was that I had been performing aerobatics below 200 feet over this chaps house.

I was mortified - sure I do fly aerobatics - but I would class myself as particularly aware of built up areas and also very against low level aeros. Then I set about thinking how ridiculous all of this sounded (I even thought that it might be a wind-up!). 200 feet is REALLY low and also difficult to judge I'd wager.

The net result was that I felt that I was presumed guilty and that my professional judgment was never even considered to be worthwhile. The CAA chap said that he was not pressing charges but was within his rights to do so since there were four witnesses (but not 4 separate complaints oddly enough!). I can understand that the CAA must show the world that it takes complaints seriously and I can understand residents who get fed up with aircraft noise. I cannot understand how the CAA accepted - without a qubble - the statment from a member of the public and then forges ahead with heavy-handed phone calls.

I felt awful; it felt like a real slight on my character and skills and judgement as a pilot. Surely even pilots must be granted that basic tenet of British Law "Innocent Until Proven Guilty"?

Has anybody else been in this situation?

[The Greaser]

I honestly think most members of the public would not have a clue what 200' looked like (including me). Heights above ground are always very difficult to estimate. Sounds like more CAA crap to me - believe some farmer when the guy in the plane is the one with the altimeter.

Happy flying.

[M14P]

Yes but my point is that I could have ended up in court on a trumped up charge of recklessness. Since I earn my living flying I feel that it is most damaging to the accused and comparitively pain-free for the plaintif.

My point still being - didn't I have the right to be presumed innocent?

Out of interest I was at least 1500 feet in the area concerned but will in future be ensuring that my Mode C is bleeping away merrily so that the nearest radar unit is recording a rough altitude for insurance purposes. I suggest that others (with nothing to hide!) do the same.

[BEagle]

I smell a rat here. I would be very surprised if the CAA Enforcement caller was genuine. He should have been told to put his point in writing and you should then have told him that the conversation was concluded.

It sounds very much as though someone who knows you and that you fly aerobatics was impersonating the CAA. Did you take the name of the caller? If so, write to the CAA and ask for an explanation, stating that they have the 10 working days of their charter to respond.

[Unwell_Raptor]

If it gets official and nasty, and if you have reasonable funds, tell your solicitor to brief Tudor Owen (aka Flying Lawyer). The word on the street is that CAA prosecutions are meat and drink to him. He is not, however, famous for being cheap.

[M14P]

Interesting

Yes he did give his name (surname only you understand - it adds to the gravity of the call) and he gave me a number to call in High Holborn. I believe that he was entirely genuine - maybe a bit outside of his remit but genuine nonetheless.

The aircraft is registered abroad and he got in contact with me by asking the flying club over the phone (data protection, not!).

All very troubling and worrisome. I am disiclined to write in case the can of worms is opened. I can say, however, that it has rather taken the edge off of my appetite for GA and has shown me the worst side of the CAA.

I have dealt a lot with the CAA in my 'proper job' and have found them genuinely good and helpful of late; I thought that a change had occurred until that call.

[BEagle]

I understand your disinclination; however, I still consider that the person purporting to be from the CAA's enforcement team acted in, at the very least, a thoroughly unprofessional manner possibly bordering on the slanderous.

You should always, as I'm sure my old chum Tudor Owen would agree, require that any such caller should make his allegation in writing. Asking you such questions over the phone would be totally inappropriate as you may unwittingly incriminate yourself - can you imagine the police phoning you up to ask who was driving a car which someone had said they thought might have been speeding?

A chum of mine who had a valid display authorisation once received a letter from the CAA stating that they thought he'd been low flying. He wrote back merely stating "Without prejudice, your letter has been received and the contents noted"! Nothing more was ever heard from them....

[M14P]

OK, I'm keen to follow it up but I would be interested to receive a few more views on the situation. Please email if you have any suggestions that might not be appropriate for the bulletin board.

Thanks for the suggestions so far.

[A and C]

I hope that you are a member of BALPA or the IPA because if the CAA think that they have a case then they will try to do you if they can and defending your self can be very expencive.

The up side to all this is that the CAA have a poor record of winning these cases.

The biggest problem is that the CAA seem unable to see a piece of fabricated evidedce from the real thing , I was able to watch Mr Owen make them all look like fools in court during the flying instructor EFATO case some time back when it was cristal clear to all but the CAA that the witnesses had fabricated the whole thing because they did not like the aircraft flying near thair houses.

The biggest problem for you is that unlike the CAA if you win you will not be able to recover all your costs , hence I hope that you have some type of leagal cover.

[Zlin526]

Never, ever tell a CAA 'investigator' anything over the telephone! If they have a genuine case to investigate, then they will write to you formally. By speaking on the telphone, you may be saying something that incriminates you even without realising it! Does sound like a wheeze to me M14

[Trinity 09L]

MI14P. To quote the inevitable caution……. You do not have to say anything……….
I have yet to caution an individual either by telephone, fax, or email……. The individual who purported to speak as from the CAA was acting outside their remit. You have grounds to complain on the basis of failing to abide by PACE, and also the Data Protection act. As someone said earlier, would you answer a “police officer” over the telephone it respect of a traffic offence. Thsi individual was unprofessional, and any evidence he/she gave in any prosecution at Court, would not be accepted. Also, their integrity would be .........nil. I would complain in writing to the CAA, quoting the name of the individual, tel No# given, time of call etc.

:mad:

[niknak]

M14 - its very unlikely that the individual was from the CAA.
They will always make an appointment to see you and not discuss details over the telephone. I know having being involved on both sides more than once.

As for tracing your details, well - it's not 'big - brother', it's simple access to the CAA aircraft register which anyone can access at any time, when the aircraft was registerd to your flying club/group you gave this permisssion, knowingly or otherwise.
It doesn't take up to much time to trace a telephone number of the operator thereafter.

Unfortunately, some of the advice given in replies to your post are very misleading, the CAA are successful in the majority of prosecutions, but I don't think you have anything to worry about.

[BEagle]

Perhaps you should just print off this thread and forward it to the CAA!

Note that no-one has tried to defend blatantly stupid or criminally irresponsible low-flying!!

If a formal complaint has been lodged, then I suspect that a decision would be made regarding whether the case merits investigation given the level of 'evidence' presented by the complainant. Fair enough - but I doubt whether any legitimate investigator would really call you by telephone.

[GroundBound]

M14,

your post is dated 14th April, and you say this happened a couple of weeks ago? 01/04/02?

[Lawyerboy]

M14 - I have every sympathy, but I just wanted to ask Trinity 09L something (out of pure and simple curiosity): why does the CAA have to abide by PACE?

[M14P]

Thanks for responses all.

The 1st was a Bank Holiday - but the thought did cross my mind!

I still feel professionally hurt by this. It is especially embarrassing since I do a fair amount of instructing and therefore occupy a position where it is desireable to be whiter than white.

I'll let you all know the outcome.

M

[Daifly]

Having had the honour, only once thankfully and not against me, of "speaking" with the CAA's enforcement branch I would argue that they are a very professional crowd.

The majority of them, so the guy said, were ex-Transport Police or CID.

I did get the caution. It was in the days pre-"not speaking will mean you are guilty". Therefore if he didn't caution you I'd say it's either a) a wind-up or b) you flew over the Chairman's BBQ and he saw your registration.

In regards to the PACE, I believe that in all circumstances where a prosecution is likely, whether against you or not, the interviewer has to read you the spiel. Otherwise you could perjure yourself and not be aware that you were doing so.

I'd get onto them (I think they're based in Gatwick, so why the Kingsway number??) and ask to speak to the Head of Department and report your concerns. If it wasn't them you'll find out, and if it was, ask them to put it in writing. And then watch your back forever.....;)

[Legalapproach]

Lawyerboy,

s67(9) PACE provides that the Codes of Practice apply to

persons "other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders"

RSPCA inspectors are bound by the codes RSPCA v. Edgar [1995] Crim.L.R. 59 as are investigators employed by a federation involved in investigating a breach of legal duty imposed by statute, common law or by contract Joy v. Federation against Copyright Theft Ltd [1993] Crim.L.R. 5889. Similarly store detectives, Trading Standards Officers and the like are all bound by the codes of practice issued under PACE.

Its important to remember that PACE codified many of the Judges Rules that had evolved as common law safeguards of the rights of an individual.

Finally, even if not prvided for by statute, the right against self-incrimination etc would require some form of caution under the Human Rights Act.

[WestWind1950]

from my knowlege of working with the authorities, the normal precedures are that after receiving a written complaint, it has to be followed up on. The owner and pic are investigated in written form with a formal letter. Then the pic is asked, again in a formal, written letter, to respond to the complaint. This all can take some days or even weeks. In the end, unless there is definite proof, it ends up word against word and the complaint gets filed away because there is just no positive proof. Phone calls will very rarily be used as a written statement must be in the files to be usable.

Of course, the best thing to do is continue to follow the rules ;)

[Trinity 09L]

Lawyerboy, someone has jumped (correctly) to my reply, which I composed at the office, to do from home

The CAA is a prosecuting authority, in respect of Air Navigation Order, and other acts. S 67(9) of PACE operative since 10.4.1995, states " Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences, (or charging (summons) offenders shall, in the discharge of that duty, have
regard to any relevant provision of such a code. (Codes of Practice).

I will agree that a telephone interview will not constitute an interview, however, an admission by that person he was the pic, as stated, and that an accusation, as stated, would lead the investigating individual to immediately caution, which they would be unable to do lawfully via the telephone.

I work on the prinicple if in doubt, do it by PACE:D

I have contacted M14P privately;)

I have known two ex members of CAA (domiciled at Holborn) neither had any aeronautical experience, or where required.

[M14P]

I am almost certain that the call was symbolic of some sort of official slap on the wrists. I have absolutely no doubt that the Man From The Ministry was who he proclaimed to be. I take an experience such as that as a positive thing; maybe it will make me think harder about the environmental effect of my aircraft. It might have even given me a 'check' on the leash and will lead to an improvement in personal standards.

I will turn it into a positive learning experience for myself. For that I thank Mr CAA Man.

The fact remains, however, that the allegation was ludicrous in the extreme. Nice weather coaxed lots of people into the air that day - Perhaps I was just the one that got singled out? Whatever lay behind it, there was clearly very little objective investigation made.

[Ivchenko]

Just to clear a little detail up, the CAA do sometimes telephone first. They called me once re a Stansted airspace infringement. As it turned out a mate was flying my Yak that day; I gave them his phone number and they just had a little chat, NFA.

I think that perhaps they follow these things up because they have to, as an earlier poster mentioned, and a phone call is their informal way of seeing what substance there is to it. Sort of fits what you said, M14P.

[Lawyerboy]

Thank you Legalapproach and Trinity09L, very informative. Last time I actually read PACE was at the end of my first year at Uni, and that was a while ago....

[virgin]

M14
I wouldn't be surprised if it was someone from the CAA Enforcement section.
Yes, the CAA does presume pilots are guilty when they get a complaint.
Yes they do give more weight to the estimates/word of complainers than the word of the pilot who as an altimeter. The case mentioned by A&C is a good illustration.
Yes the CAA is heavy-handed with pilots, particularly GA pilots.
No, they aren't fair in the way they deal with complaints against pilots.

Put it down to experience. You've learnt some things lots of people don't realise, and it sounds as though you didn't till this happened.

I think you're very wise not to risk stirring up a can of worms by making a complaint to the CAA, just in case it was a genuine call. It sounds as if they realise the evidence they have isn't strong enough to prosecute - but why take the risk of being prosecuted.
The CAA can make your life a lot more difficult than you can make theirs.

Niknak
What did you mean by 'misleading advice'?

edit
Just noticed Westwind's comments.
" ..... unless there is definite proof, it ends up word against word and the complaint gets filed away because there is just no positive proof."
That is part of the CAA party line, and it's not true.
What is "definite proof"? In the BA Instructor case mentioned by A&C, they prosecuted even though they knew their witnesses were troublemakers who had a long history of protest against Wycombe and wanted the circuit moved from their houses.
Ken Lilley the head of Enforcement personally authorised the prosecution - which the CAA lost because BA supported the FI and got him represented by FL.

Welcome to Prune, Westwind.
I see it's your first post.
Which department of the CAA do you work in? :rolleyes: