According to the CAA website they undertook 16 prosecutions in 2011/12. As there have been gulity pleas in all 16 cases it appears that the reason that there are no cases that the CAA lost on the list is that the CAA did not lose any.

So the moral of that story is don't plead guilty.

And there will have been way more than that mostly to do with breaches of dangerous goods carrage with airlines which are a piece of piss to prove .

In previous years the CAA publication had the following title:

I wonder if the latest publication is also for "Successful" prosecutions?

I think that the CAA website makes it clear that the 16 prosecutions listed were the only ones that took place - "In total during the year, the CAA undertook 16 prosecutions". Whether unsuccessful prosecutions would have been listed if there had been any is another matter.

The CAA did lose cases during this period

LA - Would be interested to hear how many cases you know about that the CAA held in that period in which the defendant was found not guilty or aquitted.

A 100% conviction rate at trial is otherwise very impressive, I bet the CPS wish they could equal that!!

The CAA website states clearly:

GP write to your MP and get them to do a FOI and state that the CAA have been economical with the truth on there website.

Frankly if the CAA are being misleading thats a worry for anyone facing a prosecution by them. as undoubtedly the Judge or Magistrate will draw an inference on sentencing from the published figures from the CAA. It does make an overt statement of "We only prosecute if the case is beyond defence and we always win"

To the best of my knowledge there are no formal guidelines for sentencing CAA matters, as is the case in many other criminal matters, including motoring offences.

Guidelines to download - Sentencing Council

GEP

That is not an impressive record at all as it smells of selective prosecuting of sure to win cases.
I noticed the only illegal charter was of a ppl in a single nothing bigger!
A bit like the World champion boxer taking on a wimps and claiming 100% success???

Pace

That's a very good point.

It does look like there is policy to not take on well funded and determined defendants.

I may be wrong but I have a feeling that Tudor Owen (aka Flying Lawyer) successfully defended a number of CAA prosecutions before his elevation to the Bench.

He did indeed.

Agreed other than the TBM pilot all the rest seem pretty tame prosecutions and none against the supposed huge market in illegal private jet operations.
Bit of a difference taking on a multi millionaire who will fight back hard and some impoverished PPL who could not afford too!

The repercussions on loosing an illegal charter and determining it was actually legal would be huge for the CAA a risk not worth taking ?

Pace

Yes; there have been multiple threads in the bizjet forum and elsewhere saying how the CAA goes after these ops but always settles on the court steps. It may be hearsay but it is quite persistent.

I am sure they don't want to create case law on scenarios like the one where the aircraft owner writes two cheques (one for the pilot and one for the leasing company) but the pilot has actually arranged the whole lot. There is no doubt IMHO the CAA would lose that one.

And let's face it - who cares? It's hardly carrying unsuspecting paying passengers, like the CAA's "illegal charter" leaflet says.

It was also very embarrassing for the CAA when they tried to play the safety case on private jet ops and discovered that professionally flown corporate jets had an accident rate of .2 per million hours the same as large airlines while their beloved AOC ops had an attrocious 3.2 per million hours even worse than single pilot owner flown biz jets!
Fly safe ? Fly private : )

Pace

It's interesting to see the different views held by various people about these prosecutions. But I'm a bit ambivalent on the topic.

Personally I take the view that I may not agree with the rules, I may not understand what the rules are supposed to achieve, but I try to follow them - because they're the rules. If I make that effort and others patently don't, then I shed no tears for those others who are caught and taken through the judicial system. On the other hand, if someone makes a genuine mistake and finds themselves in breach of the rules and then does whatever they can to remedy the situation, there seems less justification to me for the matter to end up in court. But, as has been pointed out before, the list which has prompted this discussion provides only very limited information and gives only the barest hints about the attitude of those involved, which may well sway the decision to prosecute.

One thing that does concern me, however, is that in at least one instance the list suggests that the CAA department dealing with these things is either rather relaxed with their terminology or are not aware of the rules that they are enforcing. For a department dealing with the law and and its prosecution neither situation is acceptable in my view. The case in question is CAA-v-Barke (on page 10) where there are references to the aircraft being 'given clearance to take-off' and the pilot failing to ask for clearance - from an air/ground radio operator. This caught my eye because it's my main area of activity these days but I wonder how many other similar inaccuracies or issues of concern are glossed over regarding the operation of aircraft which is the cause of most, if not all, of the cases. 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.

We are riddled with laws covering literally anything. 3000 new criminal offences brought in by labour and laws made to cover any eventuality.
No wonder the average motorist breaks the law on Average 30 times a day !
With so many laws and regulations no wonder many in all walks of life try to work within that interpretation of the law that suits .
It was Sir Douglas Bader who wrote

"Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"... (rectified thanks to Contact Tower)

Pace

And of course it was another Bader, Douglas, who said it that rules were "for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools"...

Whether that really only belied Bader's general dislike of rules I'm not sure.

Although I doubt any of the rule breakers on the list were wise men anyway...!

Whoops rectified :\

You are correct ;) How would others regard that statement?

Hi all,

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.

CAA chap showed a table of prosecutions over the past few years and basically there were only about 30 a year, with about 3 or 4 acquittals.

He said they tend only to prosecute where they feel there is an almost certain chance of conviction.

He also added that they do look very carefully at every available option, and often go for other solutions such as navigation training for infringers etc.

If I recall correct, they get about 200 complaints a year to follow up - so prosecution not too likely.

Yes, it may seem strange that some areas do not appear in court, but then - for instance (and in my words) - an agreement by someone to halt certain activities may actually serve the purpose just as well as a prosecution.

Certainly, bearing in mind some zone busts by individuals I know, prosecution would not achieve an increase in flight safety.

That is what it is all about. Safety.