Thread removal.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The girls ; ) flight planned out tomorrow am so ?? Until then sun sea and sun : )
Hard job this corporate flying
Gusher
Hard job this corporate flying
Gusher
Last edited by Pace; 27th May 2012 at 15:00.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Lyons yes it Pace! Spouter was just a private joke with GEP who reckons I do ; )
Just liked your description of living accommodation ; ) I know I dig many for myself ; )
Takeoff from S France in 30 mins so back to reality
Pace
Just liked your description of living accommodation ; ) I know I dig many for myself ; )
Takeoff from S France in 30 mins so back to reality
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 28th May 2012 at 07:48.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift, but has anyone heard anything yet about about the other GEP crusade reporting Christopher Alexander at Hinton to the CAA ? 
I thought the case was to be heard just before Christmas or just after.
I thought the case was to be heard just before Christmas or just after.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oxford
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard - You are indeed correct. There have been many hearings about Christopher Alexander at Oxford Crown Court over the last 9 months. He has faced two sets of offences, the first were for aviation related offences, the second set some what more serious in my opinion as they related to offences against a Sex Offenders Prevention order. The two sets of charges were interlinked.
The obvious question for other users on here is about my interest in this. Simple really, I have held a PPL since 1986 and have been a keen reader of this forum for the last 15 years. Work keeps me very busy so I have resisted the temptation to post on here before. My view is that getting involved with Internet Forums can quickly remove any free time that someone can have! My sisters children were members of a Church choir just outside Banbury - Mr Alexander became the conductor there for some time. None of us knew his history and she (and her children) were shocked when Alexander was arrested for breaching his Sex Offenders Prevention order.
He was arrested for his breaches of that Order - not for the CAA issues as he claimed on Flyer Forum
I feel I need to make it clear that what I am writing here is now public domain information and is free of any Court reporting restrictions. On Thursday 30th Jan it was reported on my local evening news.
In 2008 Alexander was convicted of a child related sex offence. Shortly after the offence Alexander (his current surname) changed his surname by deed poll from Ebbs to Alexander. Of course this thwarted any searches on Google which linked to his previous history.
Choirmaster admits sexually assaulting boy (From Gazette Series)
The offence from 2008 resulted in the Judge ordering that Alexander should never be allowed to work with children for his lifetime
To quote from the newspaper report in 2008 the Judge said at the time:
The two matters (aviation and sex offences) were linked to each other as part of the issues that Alexander faced was the fact that he employed a child at his flying school (Hinton Pilot Flight Training at Hinton airfield) to clean aircraft in exchange for flights.
The other was of course his work with a choir full of children.
The nine charges brought against by the CAA were related to personal licence issues. He was found not guilty at Oxford Crown Court on 25th January after a three day trial on these offences. Costs were awarded against the CAA but were not agreed at the end of the trial and would require another hearing for cost to be agreed. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened yet.
I also read the Flyer forum, Alexander had been a contributor there, openly in his own name since Nov 2012. He posted there on Wednesday (the thread was later removed) I quote below part of what he claimed
Lets be clear here, the legality of the aircraft was not a question for the trial, it was all about the legality of Alexanders own personal licence. I am amazed that (if) the CAA had agreed to a seven figure sum without so much as a hearing in such a short time scale. But then it would seem to be another case of "Chris say's - yawn..."
I can't remember any post by GEP (or anyone else) about Alexander in connection to this. I can remember some serious questions about the condition of his companies aircraft (Hinton Pilot Flight Training) I can also remember a post by GEP that praised the company after it had sorted out the issues with the maintenance. After that the thread was deleleted.
Christopher Alexander was due for trial next week with respect to the breach of the Sex Offenders Prevention Order. The trial was listed for 5 days.
On Thursday 31st January he was listed for "mention" before Judge Pringle
He changed his plea for the four charges that he faced in relation to the Sex Offenders Prevention Order to Guilty on two counts. The Judge decided to deal with it there and then. He was sentenced to a fine totaling £3500 plus costs of £1000 against him with the two remaining charges to stay on the Court record (they can be made active again in the future should anything else happen).
My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again. She has talked in her statement about how it has traumatized her children and shaken her trust.
Anyway - my little contribution over so back to my coffee and croissants here on a lovely weekend break with my family! No flying for me today
The obvious question for other users on here is about my interest in this. Simple really, I have held a PPL since 1986 and have been a keen reader of this forum for the last 15 years. Work keeps me very busy so I have resisted the temptation to post on here before. My view is that getting involved with Internet Forums can quickly remove any free time that someone can have! My sisters children were members of a Church choir just outside Banbury - Mr Alexander became the conductor there for some time. None of us knew his history and she (and her children) were shocked when Alexander was arrested for breaching his Sex Offenders Prevention order.
He was arrested for his breaches of that Order - not for the CAA issues as he claimed on Flyer Forum
I feel I need to make it clear that what I am writing here is now public domain information and is free of any Court reporting restrictions. On Thursday 30th Jan it was reported on my local evening news.
In 2008 Alexander was convicted of a child related sex offence. Shortly after the offence Alexander (his current surname) changed his surname by deed poll from Ebbs to Alexander. Of course this thwarted any searches on Google which linked to his previous history.
Choirmaster admits sexually assaulting boy (From Gazette Series)
The offence from 2008 resulted in the Judge ordering that Alexander should never be allowed to work with children for his lifetime
To quote from the newspaper report in 2008 the Judge said at the time:
Ebbs, who sat clutching a Bible in the dock throughout the hearing, was also ordered to sign the sex offenders' register for five years - and he was banned from working with children in any capacity for the rest of his life.
"That means no more choirs with children in them," the judge told Ebbs.
"That means no more choirs with children in them," the judge told Ebbs.
The other was of course his work with a choir full of children.
The nine charges brought against by the CAA were related to personal licence issues. He was found not guilty at Oxford Crown Court on 25th January after a three day trial on these offences. Costs were awarded against the CAA but were not agreed at the end of the trial and would require another hearing for cost to be agreed. To the best of my knowledge that has not happened yet.
I also read the Flyer forum, Alexander had been a contributor there, openly in his own name since Nov 2012. He posted there on Wednesday (the thread was later removed) I quote below part of what he claimed
We called the doctor that did my medical, the CAA admitted that all the aircraft were fully legal etc etc, and on the last day I was found NOT guilty on all matters. A lot was made of the allegations made on PPRune which were all unfounded. We were awarded full costs which are in six figures. The civil action which they indicated today they will settle is in seven figures.
I can't remember any post by GEP (or anyone else) about Alexander in connection to this. I can remember some serious questions about the condition of his companies aircraft (Hinton Pilot Flight Training) I can also remember a post by GEP that praised the company after it had sorted out the issues with the maintenance. After that the thread was deleleted.
Christopher Alexander was due for trial next week with respect to the breach of the Sex Offenders Prevention Order. The trial was listed for 5 days.
On Thursday 31st January he was listed for "mention" before Judge Pringle
He changed his plea for the four charges that he faced in relation to the Sex Offenders Prevention Order to Guilty on two counts. The Judge decided to deal with it there and then. He was sentenced to a fine totaling £3500 plus costs of £1000 against him with the two remaining charges to stay on the Court record (they can be made active again in the future should anything else happen).
My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again. She has talked in her statement about how it has traumatized her children and shaken her trust.
Anyway - my little contribution over so back to my coffee and croissants here on a lovely weekend break with my family! No flying for me today
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that the above post from Martin Sigarola appears to have been on Pistonheads some hours ago and was then removed.
MS I don't know where you got your facts from but there are a number of inaccuracies.
Firstly the two sets of allegations were not linked - they were on separate indictments. Had they been linked they would have been on one. The prosecution accepted that there was no link.
I am surprised that you mention the matter concerning a boy at the flying school having said that these matters are in the public domain as this allegation was not proceeded with and, as far as I am aware, no detail was mentioned in open court. Was this reported on your local news? Which news report was this as there were section 39 orders in respect of the case and I believe these remain in force?
Secondly the choir he attended was not "full of children" The evidence presented in court was that the vast majority of the choir were adults. The allegation against Mr Alexander was that he was prohibited from attending a choir, without permission from the police, where there were persons under the age of 16. The evidence presented in court was that there were about four or five female choristers who were aged 15 but close to their 16th birthdays.
Mr Alexander had disclosed his previous conviction to the vicar and the church authorities and they were fully aware of it.
As far as the flying matters are concerned, as you rightly say, Mr Alexander was found not guilty of all matters. However, costs were not awarded against the CAA but from central funds. Although the CAA had been involved in the investigation the prosecution was actually conducted by the CPS. There will be no further hearing regarding costs as these will be dealt with administratively by the Court.
.
Both the police and the church authorities were aware of his previous offending and his change of name. His change of name had absolutely nothing to do with any of the charges he faced and did nothing to hide his identity from the relevant authorities.
The "offending again" was leaving the UK to go on holiday without obtaining express permission from the police (although I understand that he had written to tell them he was going) and attending a choir where there were persons under the age of 16. He was fined. There were no allegations of further sexual offending. These were technical breaches of an order that in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amending.
MS I don't know where you got your facts from but there are a number of inaccuracies.
Firstly the two sets of allegations were not linked - they were on separate indictments. Had they been linked they would have been on one. The prosecution accepted that there was no link.
I am surprised that you mention the matter concerning a boy at the flying school having said that these matters are in the public domain as this allegation was not proceeded with and, as far as I am aware, no detail was mentioned in open court. Was this reported on your local news? Which news report was this as there were section 39 orders in respect of the case and I believe these remain in force?
Secondly the choir he attended was not "full of children" The evidence presented in court was that the vast majority of the choir were adults. The allegation against Mr Alexander was that he was prohibited from attending a choir, without permission from the police, where there were persons under the age of 16. The evidence presented in court was that there were about four or five female choristers who were aged 15 but close to their 16th birthdays.
Mr Alexander had disclosed his previous conviction to the vicar and the church authorities and they were fully aware of it.
As far as the flying matters are concerned, as you rightly say, Mr Alexander was found not guilty of all matters. However, costs were not awarded against the CAA but from central funds. Although the CAA had been involved in the investigation the prosecution was actually conducted by the CPS. There will be no further hearing regarding costs as these will be dealt with administratively by the Court.
My sister has given a statement to a national newspaper that intends to run a story about Alexander shortly, the subject is about how easy it was for a convicted sex offender to change name by deed poll and to offend again
Both the police and the church authorities were aware of his previous offending and his change of name. His change of name had absolutely nothing to do with any of the charges he faced and did nothing to hide his identity from the relevant authorities.
The "offending again" was leaving the UK to go on holiday without obtaining express permission from the police (although I understand that he had written to tell them he was going) and attending a choir where there were persons under the age of 16. He was fined. There were no allegations of further sexual offending. These were technical breaches of an order that in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amending.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just back from shopping, but while we were out I received a text message from a friend saying that he considered GEP had responded on this thread.
I have just logged on to receive a further 3 messages stating the same.
I will call you Martin, Kevin, David or whatever you like, but to keep it simple lets chose your preference of Martin this time.
What you say is accessible in the public domain, I do not know, I have not checked. If what you say is true, then obviously that is not condoned and as you quite rightly say, Chris Alexander has now been punished for that.
If any credit can be given in these circumstances, surely it is to Chris Alexander for telling the truth in Court. This must have been accepted by both the Judge and Jury in each case.
What concerns me more is Kevin Crellin/ GEP and his involvement in various other matters. You state that you do not have the time on internet forums but you seem to know a lot about various matters, which obviously does consume a lot of time.
I missed the Flyer Forum thread and cannot find it on a search, but again, you obviously was there and seem to have it recorded from your "quote" within your post.
Another thing that I find strange is this. Both yourself and Erich Von Stalhein are both new members effectively Feb 2013 both with a post count of 1. Erich seems to be displaying an avatar which you are missing.
One other thing. You and GEP seem to share a passion for croissants in your posts.
Of course, this could all be just a coincidence.
Again, I could be adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but consider what Erich Von Stalhein has said about Pistonheads.
Then see this from Captain Bumble.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...41867550,d.d2k
I have just logged on to receive a further 3 messages stating the same.
I will call you Martin, Kevin, David or whatever you like, but to keep it simple lets chose your preference of Martin this time.
What you say is accessible in the public domain, I do not know, I have not checked. If what you say is true, then obviously that is not condoned and as you quite rightly say, Chris Alexander has now been punished for that.
If any credit can be given in these circumstances, surely it is to Chris Alexander for telling the truth in Court. This must have been accepted by both the Judge and Jury in each case.
What concerns me more is Kevin Crellin/ GEP and his involvement in various other matters. You state that you do not have the time on internet forums but you seem to know a lot about various matters, which obviously does consume a lot of time.
I missed the Flyer Forum thread and cannot find it on a search, but again, you obviously was there and seem to have it recorded from your "quote" within your post.
Another thing that I find strange is this. Both yourself and Erich Von Stalhein are both new members effectively Feb 2013 both with a post count of 1. Erich seems to be displaying an avatar which you are missing.
One other thing. You and GEP seem to share a passion for croissants in your posts.
Of course, this could all be just a coincidence.
Again, I could be adding 2 + 2 and getting 5 but consider what Erich Von Stalhein has said about Pistonheads.
Then see this from Captain Bumble.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...41867550,d.d2k
RW
I entered into brief private message(s) with CA when he posted on the F -forum. I challenged some of his facts and he provided unsatisfactory & incorrect quasi legal replies. The whole thread was quite rightly deleted.
Regrettably the deed poll name change has been "abused" in the past. Now it happens here in unregulated cyberspace.
I entered into brief private message(s) with CA when he posted on the F -forum. I challenged some of his facts and he provided unsatisfactory & incorrect quasi legal replies. The whole thread was quite rightly deleted.
Regrettably the deed poll name change has been "abused" in the past. Now it happens here in unregulated cyberspace.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trinity - surely anything unsatisfactory and incorrect would have been dealt with by the Court/s. ??
I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.
I am sorry, I do not understand what you are saying.
Last edited by Richard Westnot; 2nd Feb 2013 at 17:28.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oxford
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not here talking about GEP - much as you would like to "Richard Westnott" Reading your posts you have a clear agenda.
I do read Forums, but as a rule of thumb I don't respond and don't post. This subject is close to my heart - it my family that have been affected.
You appear to have missed the Live Feed from Oxford Crown Court which listed the matter. You have have also missed the twitter account for the Court. Had you seen that then you would have known that Alexander went before the Judge at 10.43 and the next case started at 11.13. So it can be concluded that the guilty plea was dealt with in less than 30 minutes, including sentence.
In the original hearing the Judge ordered that Alexander would not be allowed to work with Children for the rest of his life. Plain and simple.
No after mention that the "Police would need to give permission" (to overturn the Judges order).
In my experience I have never heard a Judge make a statement such as the one claimed by EVS - AND fine someone £3500 plus £1000 costs
Both the CPS and the Court confirmed to me on Friday before I made my post that the matter is no longer subject to reporting restrictions with respect to Alexander. However common sense prevails and no one wants to identify the children, as such I have not been specific about the church.
I sat in the public gallery last year and listened to a pre-trial hearing of Alexander and at that stage both issues were being dealt with together. They were later separated into two trials.
How can entering plea a few days before a trial be classed as "coming clean"?
The whole sorrid affair has taken over a year and could have been concluded last year had Alexander placed his guilty plea then.
I do read Forums, but as a rule of thumb I don't respond and don't post. This subject is close to my heart - it my family that have been affected.
You appear to have missed the Live Feed from Oxford Crown Court which listed the matter. You have have also missed the twitter account for the Court. Had you seen that then you would have known that Alexander went before the Judge at 10.43 and the next case started at 11.13. So it can be concluded that the guilty plea was dealt with in less than 30 minutes, including sentence.
In the original hearing the Judge ordered that Alexander would not be allowed to work with Children for the rest of his life. Plain and simple.
No after mention that the "Police would need to give permission" (to overturn the Judges order).
In my experience I have never heard a Judge make a statement such as the one claimed by EVS - AND fine someone £3500 plus £1000 costs
in passing sentence the Judge said was far too widely drawn and needed amendi
I sat in the public gallery last year and listened to a pre-trial hearing of Alexander and at that stage both issues were being dealt with together. They were later separated into two trials.
How can entering plea a few days before a trial be classed as "coming clean"?
The whole sorrid affair has taken over a year and could have been concluded last year had Alexander placed his guilty plea then.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I speak for me. We = others speak for themselves. I was making reference to another GEP crusade and inquiry about the case between CAA/CPS and Chris Alexander.
Thanks for all the info. I say again, I do not condone what is reported or within the public domain on the other matters.
I am very pleased to hear the Chris Alexander was found not guilty in respect to the GEP involvement.
Thanks for all the info. I say again, I do not condone what is reported or within the public domain on the other matters.
I am very pleased to hear the Chris Alexander was found not guilty in respect to the GEP involvement.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oxford
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am very pleased to hear the Chris Alexander was found not guilty in respect to the GEP involvement. 
GEP was seriously criticised at my local airport when it became common knowledge that HE had advised Alexander to change Solicitors / Counsel from his original Solicitors / Counsel - so that Alexander could have a fair trial with a competent legal team well versed in aviation matters who did their best to defend him.
I understand that GEP's defence for that line of action was that if Alexander was convicted it was after a fair trial with fair representation.
I have never met GEP but others have at Oxford, so I am only commenting third hand.
At the hearing I attended Alexander was represented by a local barrister from local Chambers, not Stephen Spence. So I presume that his legal team did change.
RW,
I was refering to his/the posting on the other forum not at Court. The content was quite rightly deleted, and I refer you to the identification process used to identify ISP's, and the case rests.
I was refering to his/the posting on the other forum not at Court. The content was quite rightly deleted, and I refer you to the identification process used to identify ISP's
, and the case rests.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin
I personally do not believe that you are who you say you are. Please forgive me for that. If others fool for it, that is a matter for them.
You have had many agenda's with various people under various monikers but strangely, I have just learnt with the same ISP address.
Crellin is a snake. Let's not mince our words about that, so if you say that you
sorry I meant GEP seemingly helped CA, I would say that it was probably in his capacity of a solicitor sorry I meant fellow ppl.
If this was just a matter between you sorry GEP and CA, I would probably not take the view that I have. But it is not is it ?
A Judge did not believe a word that you sorry Crellin said, so if you now expect me to believe anything, then I am very sorry to say that I don't.
Come back, when you have read this.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...41867550,d.d2k
I personally do not believe that you are who you say you are. Please forgive me for that. If others fool for it, that is a matter for them.
You have had many agenda's with various people under various monikers but strangely, I have just learnt with the same ISP address.
Crellin is a snake. Let's not mince our words about that, so if you say that you
sorry I meant GEP seemingly helped CA, I would say that it was probably in his capacity of a solicitor sorry I meant fellow ppl.If this was just a matter between you
sorry GEP and CA, I would probably not take the view that I have. But it is not is it ?A Judge did not believe a word that you
sorry Crellin said, so if you now expect me to believe anything, then I am very sorry to say that I don't.Come back, when you have read this.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct...41867550,d.d2k
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we have two new posters here who have been following the forum for 15 years but never bothered to register and post before.
Neither have any direct involvement in the case, yet both seem to have a detailed knowledge of it and choose this topic for their first post.
Clearly neither is being 100% honest, and we have no way of knowing how honest they are, or what their interest is in the case.
Each will make their own judgement, but for me, I don' t trust a word from either of them.
Neither have any direct involvement in the case, yet both seem to have a detailed knowledge of it and choose this topic for their first post.
Clearly neither is being 100% honest, and we have no way of knowing how honest they are, or what their interest is in the case.
Each will make their own judgement, but for me, I don' t trust a word from either of them.
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Oxford
Age: 66
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richard - What a strange thought - it seems to be based on the assumption that GEP apparently likes croissants!
Do you have a personal issue with GEP? - I can't help but notice that you signed up on here about the time that all the postings started against him.
As I said before I have been a reader of this forum for many years, I can't help but wonder why you just happened to sign up here then an a large number of your posts seem to be directed at GEP.
I came on here not to talk about GEP, but to talk about Chris Alexander. I did keep a copy of his post on the other forum, which was his reply about his issues and trial with the CAA. I also saw that the person who had started the thread and Chris Alexander had the same IP address. I did also see that another poster had used an IP address that GEP had used.
I also read G-BLEW's comment after the thread was locked - which said that even with the same IP address it did not prove that it was the same person.
As I could see on there that GEP had not posted for many months on Flyer (I did look after the first post after what the post claimed) I could also see that both the original poster (a new sign up on that forum) and Chris Alexander posted seemingly from the same IP within a few hours of each post. That's how I read the message from G-BLEW.
Going back to Christopher Alexander: This was the post he made of flyer on Flyer, I have also copied the first post that started the thread. I am under the impression that on here threads are deleted if they mention GEP by name, so I have "*" some of the name.
It seems like a direct attack on GEP by both the original poster and Chris Alexander. He obviously feels that GEP was influential in the prosecution being brought. Surely though the CAA would have only proceeded based on hard evidence that they had in hand.
Just one small point - What Alexander claims about his 4.00am arrest is farcical. The offence Alexander claims he was arrested for is not an arrestable offence. The normal mode is via a summons.
And Alexanders own post:
One other thing. You and GEP seem to share a passion for croissants in your posts.
As I said before I have been a reader of this forum for many years, I can't help but wonder why you just happened to sign up here then an a large number of your posts seem to be directed at GEP.
I came on here not to talk about GEP, but to talk about Chris Alexander. I did keep a copy of his post on the other forum, which was his reply about his issues and trial with the CAA. I also saw that the person who had started the thread and Chris Alexander had the same IP address. I did also see that another poster had used an IP address that GEP had used.
I also read G-BLEW's comment after the thread was locked - which said that even with the same IP address it did not prove that it was the same person.
As I could see on there that GEP had not posted for many months on Flyer (I did look after the first post after what the post claimed) I could also see that both the original poster (a new sign up on that forum) and Chris Alexander posted seemingly from the same IP within a few hours of each post. That's how I read the message from G-BLEW.
Going back to Christopher Alexander: This was the post he made of flyer on Flyer, I have also copied the first post that started the thread. I am under the impression that on here threads are deleted if they mention GEP by name, so I have "*" some of the name.
It seems like a direct attack on GEP by both the original poster and Chris Alexander. He obviously feels that GEP was influential in the prosecution being brought. Surely though the CAA would have only proceeded based on hard evidence that they had in hand.
Just one small point - What Alexander claims about his 4.00am arrest is farcical. The offence Alexander claims he was arrested for is not an arrestable offence. The normal mode is via a summons.
Flying school owner found NOT guilty.
by wunwingpaul » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:38 am
I am new here having come across from the "other place".
I note with interest that the owner of several flying schools was recently prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority for supposed flying and instructing without the correct tickets. The argument was all over a medical. I followed the three day trial and was there.
The guy had both a NPPL medical and an JAR class 2 but not issued in the UK. The CAA admitted that they based the case on allegations made on an internet forum called pprune by a guy called goldeneagle pilot.
The guy was found not guilty of all matters by an unanimous verdict. The CAA were ordered to pay full costs back to the school owner. It is understood that the CAA are now no longer allowed to bring prosecutions but that all future prosecutions now have to go through the CP
by wunwingpaul » Wed Jan 30, 2013 10:38 amI am new here having come across from the "other place".
I note with interest that the owner of several flying schools was recently prosecuted by the Civil Aviation Authority for supposed flying and instructing without the correct tickets. The argument was all over a medical. I followed the three day trial and was there.
The guy had both a NPPL medical and an JAR class 2 but not issued in the UK. The CAA admitted that they based the case on allegations made on an internet forum called pprune by a guy called goldeneagle pilot.
The guy was found not guilty of all matters by an unanimous verdict. The CAA were ordered to pay full costs back to the school owner. It is understood that the CAA are now no longer allowed to bring prosecutions but that all future prosecutions now have to go through the CP
by Chris Alexander » 30 Jan 2013 18:32
Paul, with the greatest of respect sir, just like you are short of a wing (wunwing?) I think you are a little short of facts.
It was ME that was the subject of the prosecution so I do know a little about it.
In brief, these are matters that came out in court and are in the public arena, a person reporting to be called David ******** called both the CAA and local police reporting that none of our aircraft had C of As, insurance, radio licences, etc etc etc and that the instructors didnt hold licences.
The police checked with the CAA and I am told the CAA didn't have a record of a valid medical certificate. The police attended my house at 4am one morning and I was arrested for flying without a valid flight crew licence. (my means of not having a valid medical). At interview I explained I had both a JAR class 2 issued in Ireland and an NPPL declaration. The police knew nothing about aviation. I was charged the next morning, and refused bail on the basis that I posed a flight risk. I went before the magistrates the next morning and remanded in custody. It was stated that as I owned numerous aircraft I could "FLEE IN SOUTH AMERICA IN ONE OF THE SCHOOLS AIRCRAFT" ( yes- South America in a Pa38!!!!)
After a week in jail, I managed to get an application to a judge who let me out. I was advised not to say anything or produce anything to the CAA to "keep the powder dry". I still dont understand this bit.
I sought out proper legal advice in the form of a barrister called Stephen Spence who is also a pilot. There then followed long legal argument as the CAA tried to say that the burden of proof was upon me to prove I had a medical. Stephen said the burden was on the prosecution to prove that I didnt. This took many days in court whilst the barristers argued like two rhinos. Stephen won.
Then, and NOTHING to do with my case, the CAA lost the right to bring cases due to some European ruling and the case went over to the CPS. This is when it all went bad as the CPS really didnt seem to understand aviation law. Each hearing had a new CPS barrister, paperwork got lost by them etc etc etc.
We expected them to withdraw before the trial but to trial it went. 10 counts of flying without a licence- several counts of the same day- ie count 3 a flight to Popham, count 4 the flight back! etc etc.
We called the doctor that did my medical, the CAA admitted that all the aircraft were fully legal etc etc, and on the last day I was found NOT guilty on all matters. Alot was made of the allegations made on PPRune which were all unfounded. We were awarded full costs which are in six figures. The civil action which they indicated today they will settle is in seven figures.
If you get in trouble with the CAA get a good lawyer. You will find it hard to beat Stephen Spence- one of the very few barristers willing to take defence work.
I hope this is the end to all matters and that I can quietly get on with running safe, legal and fun flying schools and concentrate on good stuff.
So dont blame the CAA, dont deal in rumours, and above all enjoy your flying. The thought of losing your licences and not being able to fly brought that one home to me.
HAve fun guys.
Paul, with the greatest of respect sir, just like you are short of a wing (wunwing?) I think you are a little short of facts.
It was ME that was the subject of the prosecution so I do know a little about it.
In brief, these are matters that came out in court and are in the public arena, a person reporting to be called David ******** called both the CAA and local police reporting that none of our aircraft had C of As, insurance, radio licences, etc etc etc and that the instructors didnt hold licences.
The police checked with the CAA and I am told the CAA didn't have a record of a valid medical certificate. The police attended my house at 4am one morning and I was arrested for flying without a valid flight crew licence. (my means of not having a valid medical). At interview I explained I had both a JAR class 2 issued in Ireland and an NPPL declaration. The police knew nothing about aviation. I was charged the next morning, and refused bail on the basis that I posed a flight risk. I went before the magistrates the next morning and remanded in custody. It was stated that as I owned numerous aircraft I could "FLEE IN SOUTH AMERICA IN ONE OF THE SCHOOLS AIRCRAFT" ( yes- South America in a Pa38!!!!)
After a week in jail, I managed to get an application to a judge who let me out. I was advised not to say anything or produce anything to the CAA to "keep the powder dry". I still dont understand this bit.
I sought out proper legal advice in the form of a barrister called Stephen Spence who is also a pilot. There then followed long legal argument as the CAA tried to say that the burden of proof was upon me to prove I had a medical. Stephen said the burden was on the prosecution to prove that I didnt. This took many days in court whilst the barristers argued like two rhinos. Stephen won.
Then, and NOTHING to do with my case, the CAA lost the right to bring cases due to some European ruling and the case went over to the CPS. This is when it all went bad as the CPS really didnt seem to understand aviation law. Each hearing had a new CPS barrister, paperwork got lost by them etc etc etc.
We expected them to withdraw before the trial but to trial it went. 10 counts of flying without a licence- several counts of the same day- ie count 3 a flight to Popham, count 4 the flight back! etc etc.
We called the doctor that did my medical, the CAA admitted that all the aircraft were fully legal etc etc, and on the last day I was found NOT guilty on all matters. Alot was made of the allegations made on PPRune which were all unfounded. We were awarded full costs which are in six figures. The civil action which they indicated today they will settle is in seven figures.
If you get in trouble with the CAA get a good lawyer. You will find it hard to beat Stephen Spence- one of the very few barristers willing to take defence work.
I hope this is the end to all matters and that I can quietly get on with running safe, legal and fun flying schools and concentrate on good stuff.
So dont blame the CAA, dont deal in rumours, and above all enjoy your flying. The thought of losing your licences and not being able to fly brought that one home to me.
HAve fun guys.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dublinpilot I hear what you are saying and you could be on the right track. I don't know.
What I do know is this. On the one hand a Court found CA telling the truth and on the other hand, a Court did not believe any word coming from Crellins mouth.
I am not a gambling man but I know where my money would be stacked between the two.
What I do know is this. On the one hand a Court found CA telling the truth and on the other hand, a Court did not believe any word coming from Crellins mouth.
I am not a gambling man but I know where my money would be stacked between the two.
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: 15 DME
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wb9999 yep, you are right.
Ha ha - Martina, tell us about the posts from "lostherway" are you a female now ?
Ha ha - Martina, tell us about the posts from "lostherway" are you a female now ?
Last edited by Richard Westnot; 2nd Feb 2013 at 21:28. Reason: Spell name
