Latest CAA prosecutions
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Back in the UK again.
Age: 77
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a little event with the local Special Branch, UK Borders Agency and a CAA enforcement officer here at the airfield a few nights ago.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA is going to be so cavalier in their language describing the law that they are supposed to uphold, surely they can't be surprised when others interpret the law with similar approximations
Admittedly the last time I was in a court was 1985 (carelessly driving an XR3i
) but the prosecution lied about a number of things which would have been fairly easy to sort out (technically if perhaps not without a lot of hassle) . Yet it was obviously quite difficult to extract oneself from that situation after you pleaded guilty. There is nowadays a thing called Newton hearing which can be used in such a situation but it needs a defendant who is fairly determined to get justice and not just buy himself peace by using a cheap (stupid) solicitor and writing a cheque which is what most businessmen are happy to do (and that is also what keeps HMRC in the money these days). For example I was accused of doing 90+mph in a street which was not long enough to reach 90 by a factor of several times but proving so would be expensive (they initially told my solicitor they would be doing me for 60 in a 30 and I spent some weeks trying to find an expert witness from Ford, without success) so I gave up and on the day the figure went up from 60 to 90 and I got done for 90 in a 30. In the goode olde pre-CPS days, the police did this quite often if they didn't like somebody.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 381
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt the CAA would knowingly lie in a court case. They will pursue avenues that bear very little to the case at hand just to score points, though, but that is a disease widely spread in the Anglo-Saxon legal system.
The Police, by contrast, both on the continent and in the UK are on record for forging and falsifying anything if it fits their case and they think they can get away with it.
The Police, by contrast, both on the continent and in the UK are on record for forging and falsifying anything if it fits their case and they think they can get away with it.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I doubt the CAA would knowingly lie in a court case.
The conversation at the roadside went:
Her: "what's your date of birth?"
Me: "why do you need to know?"
Her: quotes some statute which gives her authority to demand my date of birth
Me: gives date of birth
In her statement to court this somehow translated to "refused to give date of birth". I just couldn't get my head around why she thought it worthwhile to knowingly lie like that.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Ahhh, Pace, now you're talking about a different issue.
As I said, I may not agree with the rules, and I do what I can to influence them during their drafting stages. But once they're in law I will try to follow them and I make assumptions about the actions of others with the expectation that they, too, will follow the rules. Maybe I'm just a bit boring like that but that's how I approach things in aviation. Strangely, I take a slightly different view in some other domains like motoring, for example, but that probably a whole different topic.
One of the reasons I treat the aviation rules as I do is that I may not (or probably certainly do not) understand the entire objective of each particular rule and how it interacts with the multitude of other aviation rules that exist. Whilst the implications of infringing some rules may appear obvious, in other cases this not be so - and even when we think it is obvious it's quite possible that we have not seen the whole picture.
xrayalpha's final comments are, perhaps, the most important to bear in mind. In aviation, prosecutions are done less to protect the community from wrongdoers and more to try and change behaviours.
As I said, I may not agree with the rules, and I do what I can to influence them during their drafting stages. But once they're in law I will try to follow them and I make assumptions about the actions of others with the expectation that they, too, will follow the rules. Maybe I'm just a bit boring like that but that's how I approach things in aviation. Strangely, I take a slightly different view in some other domains like motoring, for example, but that probably a whole different topic.
One of the reasons I treat the aviation rules as I do is that I may not (or probably certainly do not) understand the entire objective of each particular rule and how it interacts with the multitude of other aviation rules that exist. Whilst the implications of infringing some rules may appear obvious, in other cases this not be so - and even when we think it is obvious it's quite possible that we have not seen the whole picture.
xrayalpha's final comments are, perhaps, the most important to bear in mind. In aviation, prosecutions are done less to protect the community from wrongdoers and more to try and change behaviours.
"for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"...
Fly Conventional Gear
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Winchester
Posts: 1,600
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
xrayalpha's final comments are, perhaps, the most important to bear in mind. In aviation, prosecutions are done less to protect the community from wrongdoers and more to try and change behaviours.
I can't really help thinking though that for some of the blatant violations like flying without a licence the punishment should be much greater. I mean one could argue that with light aircraft the third party risk is relatively low even without a licence but actually to fine someone just a few thousand pounds for flying without one fails to do justice to what a serious business we are really in with flying, GA or otherwise...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In her statement to court this somehow translated to "refused to give date of birth". I just couldn't get my head around why she thought it worthwhile to knowingly lie like that.
I am not suggesting the CAA would lie but if they get a less than very competent lawyer then anything is possible. Look how many pilots don't know the details of air law.
He said they tend only to prosecute where they feel there is an almost certain chance of conviction.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London UK
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He said they tend only to prosecute where they feel there is an almost certain chance of conviction.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/about/principles.html
one of their tests is whether a:
"... jury or bench of magistrates ... will be more likely than not to convict ..."
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is because they are private prosecutions and the CAA has to pay for them. It wants to be able to claim costs in order to recover its expenses therefore its all about money at the end of the day.
Maybe why you see very few cases up there. And when they do they don't have a very good success record. The pilots flying under the sky bridge to avoid birds as an example.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some of the experiences on here would leave you to question why you would agree to answer questions without being represented. At least that way it is difficult for either party to misrepresent what was said.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a pro you should never ever answer any questions to either company or the authorities until you have representation.
They want you to spill the beans while your still in shock and can't think straight. They really don't want you to have a decent nights sleep and then a lawyer/ BALPA rep sitting next to you advising what not to say and to also act as a wittness.
They want you to spill the beans while your still in shock and can't think straight. They really don't want you to have a decent nights sleep and then a lawyer/ BALPA rep sitting next to you advising what not to say and to also act as a wittness.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, oldest trick in the book, and other considerations aside, you will often say things without realising that they are not an accurate representation of the event. You need only consider how often witnesses cant agree on the basic elements of an event.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
You have hit the nail on the head, I once sat in a court and listened to the evidence in a low flying case, the witnesses who were all claiming that the aircraft was within 500 ft could not agree if the aircraft was a high or low wing type.
The defence brief in this case was non other than The Flying Lawyer who walked all over the CAA case. I suspect that the CAA had little option to bring this particular case as the NIMBYS were ganging up and getting political, in the end it was the very people who started the ball rolling that provided such poor evidence that the made a not guilty verdict the only course of action for the magistrates.
The defence brief in this case was non other than The Flying Lawyer who walked all over the CAA case. I suspect that the CAA had little option to bring this particular case as the NIMBYS were ganging up and getting political, in the end it was the very people who started the ball rolling that provided such poor evidence that the made a not guilty verdict the only course of action for the magistrates.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The stuff ATPL's usually get into trouble for are usually directly related to company infringements and the company gets done.
Unless you work for ryanair then its in your contract that your liable for any fines etc.
The other thing is that most ATPL's will be able to bring in a raft of technical witnesses. The likes of the BHX case would get pretty techincal very quickly and cost a fortune.
But in general the enviroment we operate in there is less chance of screwing up. You get the odd few that bust noise and get a snotty letter and a fine but apart from that its dangerous goods and stuff like that that comes up and if the ATPL hasn't been given the correct info in the first place the system is at fault not them.
Unless you work for ryanair then its in your contract that your liable for any fines etc.
The other thing is that most ATPL's will be able to bring in a raft of technical witnesses. The likes of the BHX case would get pretty techincal very quickly and cost a fortune.
But in general the enviroment we operate in there is less chance of screwing up. You get the odd few that bust noise and get a snotty letter and a fine but apart from that its dangerous goods and stuff like that that comes up and if the ATPL hasn't been given the correct info in the first place the system is at fault not them.