" 20 feet or 6 inches?"
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inspector L.. .I don't think it's wrong to criticise the pilot. I just thought you were being very harsh on him for making, yes, a mistake.. .There but for the grace of God?
greenarrow. .My spies tell me you know quite a lot about this case in a professional capacity.. .Can you give us a bit more information?. .e.g.. .Q: Is it true the CAA went completely OTT?. .Q: Were the facts as bad as the CAA proseutor made out?. .Q: Did the CAA prosecute fairly or unfairly?. .Any views on the CAA claiming costs of £40,000 prosecuting the case?
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>
greenarrow. .My spies tell me you know quite a lot about this case in a professional capacity.. .Can you give us a bit more information?. .e.g.. .Q: Is it true the CAA went completely OTT?. .Q: Were the facts as bad as the CAA proseutor made out?. .Q: Did the CAA prosecute fairly or unfairly?. .Any views on the CAA claiming costs of £40,000 prosecuting the case?
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Heliport ]</p>
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman, I notice that the (flight ops?)Inspector didn't reply to your part time North Sea bit. Perhaps he is a Gatwick Wannabee!
I assume that you attended the court and if that is the case why didn't the defence give the CAA's professional witnesses a hard time about 5 feet up and 20 feet along? Also, what was the other (professional) pilot doing? Surely the tables and a 6 stone woman aren't so small that four eyes wouldn't see them.
Finally - for FL - "On the Skids" suggested that a discussion about a newspaper report on this forum produced "6 clear cases of contempt of court". Could this be true - bearing in mind that the CAA and their barrister were reported to be talking to the media throughout the trial?
Now that the CAA has regained some street cred, they are bound to have another go unless all of their Inspectors go into early retirement! Some are I hear! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
I assume that you attended the court and if that is the case why didn't the defence give the CAA's professional witnesses a hard time about 5 feet up and 20 feet along? Also, what was the other (professional) pilot doing? Surely the tables and a 6 stone woman aren't so small that four eyes wouldn't see them.
Finally - for FL - "On the Skids" suggested that a discussion about a newspaper report on this forum produced "6 clear cases of contempt of court". Could this be true - bearing in mind that the CAA and their barrister were reported to be talking to the media throughout the trial?
Now that the CAA has regained some street cred, they are bound to have another go unless all of their Inspectors go into early retirement! Some are I hear! <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Inspector L.. .I do know quite a bit about this case. All secondhand I admit, but it's from someone I've worked with many times over the years, and trust totally as a balanced sensible and reliable guy.
Yes, the pilot did a ground recce that morning, and a downwind recce before landing. Witnesses saw him flying overhead, then he returned and landed.. .No, the fact that neither the pilot nor the ATPL with him saw the hazard doesn't "makes it alright then." But it gives a clue that the hazard wasn't as obvious as you might think.
"Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.". .The 'CAA bashing' isn't because they prosecuted the pilot. Everyone seems to agree that was fair enough in the circumstances.. .The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.. .eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.. .eg Taking the case to the crown court instead of dealing with it in the local court.. .eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version when (a) other witnesses had her just tipping back in her chair, and (b) their own experts must have known just like the rest of us that the Mary Poppins story had to be complete b*lls.. .eg The CAA inhouse experts were very quick to use their expertise to criticise the pilot's account, but said nothing to cast doubt on the flying lady nonsense.. .eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?. .eg The CAA lawyer claimed the pilot just charged recklessly into the site without caring about the people who might be there when every single witness said he came in very slowly.
Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.. .Flying Lawyer is a pilot and managed to get the case back in proportion by crossexamining the witnesses and showing the CAA's version was completely OTT. . .Why do you think the CAA gave up trying to prove reckless? Because their case was shot down.. .It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought?
I'm not criticising the CAA for prosecuting, it was the OTT/unfair way they went about it.. .And why?. .Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed, thanks to Flying Lawyer. They gave up trying to prove recklessness, and the pilot pleaded guilty to what he had done, made a mistake, negligence.
IMHO the way the CAA prosecuted did more harm to the industry with all the national Press/tv coverage than the pilot did in a relatively minor incident in front of 10 old dears in a small remote hotel in Norfolk.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer, even if we disagree.. .Safe flying.
BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Edit. .Earpiece. Just seen your post. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll try to find out and come back to you.
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Hoverman ]</p>
Yes, the pilot did a ground recce that morning, and a downwind recce before landing. Witnesses saw him flying overhead, then he returned and landed.. .No, the fact that neither the pilot nor the ATPL with him saw the hazard doesn't "makes it alright then." But it gives a clue that the hazard wasn't as obvious as you might think.
"Can we be a little bit more open minded about this rather than just CAA bashing.". .The 'CAA bashing' isn't because they prosecuted the pilot. Everyone seems to agree that was fair enough in the circumstances.. .The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.. .eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.. .eg Taking the case to the crown court instead of dealing with it in the local court.. .eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version when (a) other witnesses had her just tipping back in her chair, and (b) their own experts must have known just like the rest of us that the Mary Poppins story had to be complete b*lls.. .eg The CAA inhouse experts were very quick to use their expertise to criticise the pilot's account, but said nothing to cast doubt on the flying lady nonsense.. .eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?. .eg The CAA lawyer claimed the pilot just charged recklessly into the site without caring about the people who might be there when every single witness said he came in very slowly.
Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.. .Flying Lawyer is a pilot and managed to get the case back in proportion by crossexamining the witnesses and showing the CAA's version was completely OTT. . .Why do you think the CAA gave up trying to prove reckless? Because their case was shot down.. .It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought?
I'm not criticising the CAA for prosecuting, it was the OTT/unfair way they went about it.. .And why?. .Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed, thanks to Flying Lawyer. They gave up trying to prove recklessness, and the pilot pleaded guilty to what he had done, made a mistake, negligence.
IMHO the way the CAA prosecuted did more harm to the industry with all the national Press/tv coverage than the pilot did in a relatively minor incident in front of 10 old dears in a small remote hotel in Norfolk.
Hope that makes things a bit clearer, even if we disagree.. .Safe flying.
BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Edit. .Earpiece. Just seen your post. I don't know the answer to your question. I'll try to find out and come back to you.
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Hoverman ]</p>
From this side of the world, I can only see this as a precedent for future action <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
What does astound me, however, is the awarding of costs. Since when did a criminal have to pay Crown costs, even for the most heinous of crimes? Why on earth is a pilot required to pay CAA's costs, when they are effectively (ISTM) acting as a quasi Crown prosecuter.
FL, I'm sure that you can explain such that I can understand, but the ramifications must be enormous. Does this give a local council the right to bring charges against a pilot for landing without planning permission, then claim their costs if/when they win? If so, could you see this happening in a lower profile case, eg illegal tipping, or failing to comply with a local planning restriction?
The mind boggles <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
What does astound me, however, is the awarding of costs. Since when did a criminal have to pay Crown costs, even for the most heinous of crimes? Why on earth is a pilot required to pay CAA's costs, when they are effectively (ISTM) acting as a quasi Crown prosecuter.
FL, I'm sure that you can explain such that I can understand, but the ramifications must be enormous. Does this give a local council the right to bring charges against a pilot for landing without planning permission, then claim their costs if/when they win? If so, could you see this happening in a lower profile case, eg illegal tipping, or failing to comply with a local planning restriction?
The mind boggles <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> <img src="eek.gif" border="0">
After reading the rest of the details and the informed comment here, I am left again wondering what precisely was gained from this prosecution?
As others have noted, this entire issue was blown entirely out of all proportion, and the size of the fine and costs are completely out of context with the circumstance.
That a Government agency can devote this amount of effort and expense to something of this nature, is indicative of a department that is lacking suitable management and oversight, or is totally lacking a positive, or any real, application to devote it's resources to! The expense and scale of mounting a defence against the unlimited resources of the government is enough to ensure even the most resolute would capitulate.
This issue could have been much better resolved between the parties, rather than a showcase trial to demonstrate the power of the authority. Pretty disgusting really.
I have read of a couple of these persecutions (sorry, prosecutions), and they remind me of the activities of the FAA whilst dealing with <a href="http://www.avweb.com/other/faahoovr.html" target="_blank">Bob Hoover.</a>.
Forming a defensive circle to defend their position and power, they engage you in an ever worsening battle, from which you will not walk away!
There are much simpler, effective (and cost effective) ways of resolving issues of this nature which can actually result in a positive outcome by educating others in the avoidance of situations of this nature. Pillorying an individual, is not the one that springs to my mind!
As others have noted, this entire issue was blown entirely out of all proportion, and the size of the fine and costs are completely out of context with the circumstance.
That a Government agency can devote this amount of effort and expense to something of this nature, is indicative of a department that is lacking suitable management and oversight, or is totally lacking a positive, or any real, application to devote it's resources to! The expense and scale of mounting a defence against the unlimited resources of the government is enough to ensure even the most resolute would capitulate.
This issue could have been much better resolved between the parties, rather than a showcase trial to demonstrate the power of the authority. Pretty disgusting really.
I have read of a couple of these persecutions (sorry, prosecutions), and they remind me of the activities of the FAA whilst dealing with <a href="http://www.avweb.com/other/faahoovr.html" target="_blank">Bob Hoover.</a>.
Forming a defensive circle to defend their position and power, they engage you in an ever worsening battle, from which you will not walk away!
There are much simpler, effective (and cost effective) ways of resolving issues of this nature which can actually result in a positive outcome by educating others in the avoidance of situations of this nature. Pillorying an individual, is not the one that springs to my mind!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a case that became compeletly out of proportion to what happened on the ground (or slightly above it). The most frightening thing was the way the CAA ran up costs which were then claimed from the unfortunate pilot. I say unfortinate because although he committed an offence, the punishment came in the form of the £5,000 fine. The £39,000 prosecution costs on top are punitive in the extreme. When a fine is imposed a Judge has regard to a defendant's means and ability to pay. When the CAA run up costs it seems to look upon it as a blank cheque.
It should have been apparent from the outset that the pilot was negligent in the very wide way in which the law defines the word (involving an honest mistake or momentary inadvertance) but this was not a case of recklessness. Had they charged him with negligence alone the case would probably have remained in the magistrate's court and the costs would have been substantially less.
The costs claimed by the CAA included the costs of the investigation (the hiring of helicopters to re-enact the incident, the hourly costs of in-house investigators already employed by the CAA and the costs of their other employees involved in the investigation/legal proceedings). There was also an outragious amount of money spent on their Barrister. The CAA originally employed a local criminal Barrister who would have done the case for a fraction of the amount charged by their eventual counsel. At some stage (and I have heard a rumour that it was after the defence had served copies of their experts reports which caused them to worry that their case was not as strong as it first seemed) the CAA moved the case to 'specialist aviation counsel' who charged a fee running into five figures. The interesting comparison is that in a criminal case the CPS claim the direct costs of the actual prosecution. The CAA equivalent is to charge for the wages of the police men, the petrol in the police car the leasing costs of the police car etc.
As to the conduct of the trial. The defence were happy for the witness statements of the unfortunate lady and her husband to be read to the jury. They did not require her to attend court or have to re-live the experience. The CAA and their counsel insisted on the lady giving evidence in person. Why? In order to attract the sympathy of the jury and lob some prejudice against the defendant. I have spoken to the experienced criminal Barrister who was first briefed to prosecute the case and asked him if he would have called her to give live evidence. His answer? No. He went on to give his opinion who might do it but on reflection I have edited his remarks.
I do not criticise the CAA for prosecuting because there was a clear case of negligence and an innocent lady suffered as a result. However I would criticise the manner in which both the case and the prosecution escalated.
What are the benefits to aviation at the end of the day? The image of aviation improved? Safety lessons learnt?
It should have been apparent from the outset that the pilot was negligent in the very wide way in which the law defines the word (involving an honest mistake or momentary inadvertance) but this was not a case of recklessness. Had they charged him with negligence alone the case would probably have remained in the magistrate's court and the costs would have been substantially less.
The costs claimed by the CAA included the costs of the investigation (the hiring of helicopters to re-enact the incident, the hourly costs of in-house investigators already employed by the CAA and the costs of their other employees involved in the investigation/legal proceedings). There was also an outragious amount of money spent on their Barrister. The CAA originally employed a local criminal Barrister who would have done the case for a fraction of the amount charged by their eventual counsel. At some stage (and I have heard a rumour that it was after the defence had served copies of their experts reports which caused them to worry that their case was not as strong as it first seemed) the CAA moved the case to 'specialist aviation counsel' who charged a fee running into five figures. The interesting comparison is that in a criminal case the CPS claim the direct costs of the actual prosecution. The CAA equivalent is to charge for the wages of the police men, the petrol in the police car the leasing costs of the police car etc.
As to the conduct of the trial. The defence were happy for the witness statements of the unfortunate lady and her husband to be read to the jury. They did not require her to attend court or have to re-live the experience. The CAA and their counsel insisted on the lady giving evidence in person. Why? In order to attract the sympathy of the jury and lob some prejudice against the defendant. I have spoken to the experienced criminal Barrister who was first briefed to prosecute the case and asked him if he would have called her to give live evidence. His answer? No. He went on to give his opinion who might do it but on reflection I have edited his remarks.
I do not criticise the CAA for prosecuting because there was a clear case of negligence and an innocent lady suffered as a result. However I would criticise the manner in which both the case and the prosecution escalated.
What are the benefits to aviation at the end of the day? The image of aviation improved? Safety lessons learnt?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: North Sea
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoverman. .“The 'CAA bashing' is because of the way they went about it.eg Charging him with reckless flying, not just negligent flying.”. .I still don’t see why that is a problem, you could argue that it was reckless flying.
“eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version …..". .Welcome to the real world. It was the CAA barrister’s job to get a conviction and so yes he is going to do and say everything that he can to ensure that. He was doing his job. It’s not up to him to decide if a witness’s story is correct it is the job of the court. He is there to prove the case and he’ll use the witnesses to try and achieve that. As FL said, that was why they went for both the reckless and negligent charge so that they have a fullback if reckless isn’t proved.
“eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?”. .Maybe, but then that is the law that is at fault for allowing the lawyer to do that. As I said before, he was out to win in case. Did the defence lawyer pick up and on that and argue that point?
“Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.”. .Oh come on, if you are charged with a murder you don’t get a libel lawyer to defend you. You get the appropriate expert to defend you for the crime that you are charged with.
“It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought? “. .The incident involved blowing people over along with tables and chairs. What happened if a person received an injury which lead to them losing their livelihood? What if it wasn’t a group of “old dears” as you called them but a group of small children, worth a thought? Nobody wants to be prosecuted or lose their licence but we shouldn’t become so blinkered in that approach that we forget the fundamentals of general aviation or support those that have.
“Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed.”. .No. They succeeded in one of the two charges. From the CAA’s point of view they have actually achieved a lot in this. For starters how many of us now that have read this discussion or the newspapers etc are going to be more careful next time they land at a similar site. So that’s good for flight safety. They got a prosecution for negligent flying and proved to their political masters/ the press etc.. that they are active in policing the industry which is after all their job.
“BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it.”. .Why? For all you know you may have paid me the highest compliment by suggesting it! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
No, I don’t and Earpiece I’m not a gatwick wannabee. You shouldn’t read too much in to pprune usernames. I'm just an ordinary pilot adding his opinion to a discussion board. There is no hidden agenda! <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
“eg Allowing their barrister to allege the worst 'flying lady' version …..". .Welcome to the real world. It was the CAA barrister’s job to get a conviction and so yes he is going to do and say everything that he can to ensure that. He was doing his job. It’s not up to him to decide if a witness’s story is correct it is the job of the court. He is there to prove the case and he’ll use the witnesses to try and achieve that. As FL said, that was why they went for both the reckless and negligent charge so that they have a fullback if reckless isn’t proved.
“eg Why did the CAA lawyer told the jury that he was a wealthy company chairman flying his own helicopter and collecting a 22 year old young woman from the hotel? What's that but simple prejudice?”. .Maybe, but then that is the law that is at fault for allowing the lawyer to do that. As I said before, he was out to win in case. Did the defence lawyer pick up and on that and argue that point?
“Pause to think what would have happened if the guy had been defended by an ordinary lawyer.”. .Oh come on, if you are charged with a murder you don’t get a libel lawyer to defend you. You get the appropriate expert to defend you for the crime that you are charged with.
“It could be one of us if we screwed up and the CAA decide to build it up all out of proportion. End of licence and livelihood. Worth a thought? “. .The incident involved blowing people over along with tables and chairs. What happened if a person received an injury which lead to them losing their livelihood? What if it wasn’t a group of “old dears” as you called them but a group of small children, worth a thought? Nobody wants to be prosecuted or lose their licence but we shouldn’t become so blinkered in that approach that we forget the fundamentals of general aviation or support those that have.
“Because they've lost so many cases in the past few years, they were determined to make a point this time. But they failed.”. .No. They succeeded in one of the two charges. From the CAA’s point of view they have actually achieved a lot in this. For starters how many of us now that have read this discussion or the newspapers etc are going to be more careful next time they land at a similar site. So that’s good for flight safety. They got a prosecution for negligent flying and proved to their political masters/ the press etc.. that they are active in policing the industry which is after all their job.
“BTW, do you work for the CAA? If not, apologies for suggesting it.”. .Why? For all you know you may have paid me the highest compliment by suggesting it! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
No, I don’t and Earpiece I’m not a gatwick wannabee. You shouldn’t read too much in to pprune usernames. I'm just an ordinary pilot adding his opinion to a discussion board. There is no hidden agenda! <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Chelmsford
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From day one it was apparent that the CAA had changed their direction of attack. This no doubt was after they had recieved the defence expert witness statements. The account of being reckless was on thin ice, this being supported by the CAA own witness evidence and the FL cross examination along with the defence expertwitness statements.
The CAA own expert witness gave a very good account of himself and talked a word perfect exercise 26(confined areas). Therfore the FL had very little to counter, although by this stage (day 3) the CAA had agreed to allow a plea bargain and go for the charge to be only that of negligence.
Points to ponder!. .1. The recce of the site, which was the mainstay of the inital charge (or should I say the implication of the lack of recce).. .This point in it's self was countered by the expert witness statements. Why carry out a full exercise 26 recce (High and Low), when most pilots with experience will make a judgement on the hoof ie, downwind or on finals.. .We as pilots are always being asked to fly in such a manner to avoid the noise nuisance this even being highlighted on the reverse of exemptions issued by the CAA.. .This was conceded by the CAA in follow up statements after they had tme to read the expert witness statements.
But after their own expert witness and the video evidence had been given, it is still apparent that they will require the recce to satisfy he procedures for off field approaches and landings.. .(So now we end up Pxxxxxg everyone off and getting complaints, please refer them to the CAA).. .They also mentioned that consideration for a late overshoot should be given (Is that a charge of low flying!).
2. The first day in court was a complete sham and it proceded to show how low the CAA intended to go with the press briefings, the sympathy vote being pushed (What if a child had run out!),Implying the accused was a wealthy buisness man who went flew to pick up the young girl and that he could'nt give a toss and the fact that the highly paid gold braded witness were here to support the defence. All of which left the FL steaming from the ears and proving that the CAA were out to try all the dirty tricks and at all cost(Hence the £40000) to win the case. (read into this I know the FL has!).
3. The CAA hired aircraft and videoed the alledged flight path. This video being filmed from on top of the instrument combing with a slight depressed veiw therfore showing that there was a very good almost unobstructive veiw. (As we all kwow the veiw from an IFR 355 is not that good but we tend to fly to compensate this difficency). It went on to show the alledged flight path along the hotel frontage this to me was an account of reckless flying by the CAA as the aircraft flew sideways along the edge of the gravel drive at around 5-6ft trying to embelish the statements. But this point was not consistant with the statements given by both the accused and the of the witnesses there at the time of the incedent.
Finally, My thoughts go to the accused who unfortunatly err'd, and the account of negligence was upheld, but he has been used as a scapegoat in this case, which in it's self should have been a case for the magistrates court and not that for the county court. This has cost a great deal of money and has showed that they will stop at nothing to get a conviction.. .How many of us could afford this sort of action! how many have insurance to cover the cost!.. .There by the grace of God!!!.
The CAA own expert witness gave a very good account of himself and talked a word perfect exercise 26(confined areas). Therfore the FL had very little to counter, although by this stage (day 3) the CAA had agreed to allow a plea bargain and go for the charge to be only that of negligence.
Points to ponder!. .1. The recce of the site, which was the mainstay of the inital charge (or should I say the implication of the lack of recce).. .This point in it's self was countered by the expert witness statements. Why carry out a full exercise 26 recce (High and Low), when most pilots with experience will make a judgement on the hoof ie, downwind or on finals.. .We as pilots are always being asked to fly in such a manner to avoid the noise nuisance this even being highlighted on the reverse of exemptions issued by the CAA.. .This was conceded by the CAA in follow up statements after they had tme to read the expert witness statements.
But after their own expert witness and the video evidence had been given, it is still apparent that they will require the recce to satisfy he procedures for off field approaches and landings.. .(So now we end up Pxxxxxg everyone off and getting complaints, please refer them to the CAA).. .They also mentioned that consideration for a late overshoot should be given (Is that a charge of low flying!).
2. The first day in court was a complete sham and it proceded to show how low the CAA intended to go with the press briefings, the sympathy vote being pushed (What if a child had run out!),Implying the accused was a wealthy buisness man who went flew to pick up the young girl and that he could'nt give a toss and the fact that the highly paid gold braded witness were here to support the defence. All of which left the FL steaming from the ears and proving that the CAA were out to try all the dirty tricks and at all cost(Hence the £40000) to win the case. (read into this I know the FL has!).
3. The CAA hired aircraft and videoed the alledged flight path. This video being filmed from on top of the instrument combing with a slight depressed veiw therfore showing that there was a very good almost unobstructive veiw. (As we all kwow the veiw from an IFR 355 is not that good but we tend to fly to compensate this difficency). It went on to show the alledged flight path along the hotel frontage this to me was an account of reckless flying by the CAA as the aircraft flew sideways along the edge of the gravel drive at around 5-6ft trying to embelish the statements. But this point was not consistant with the statements given by both the accused and the of the witnesses there at the time of the incedent.
Finally, My thoughts go to the accused who unfortunatly err'd, and the account of negligence was upheld, but he has been used as a scapegoat in this case, which in it's self should have been a case for the magistrates court and not that for the county court. This has cost a great deal of money and has showed that they will stop at nothing to get a conviction.. .How many of us could afford this sort of action! how many have insurance to cover the cost!.. .There by the grace of God!!!.
This story doesn't stop here though.
According to the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F01%2F31%2Fnchop31.xml" target="_blank">Daily Telegraph</a> story here;
[quote] The CAA is studying whether to revoke Bigwood's pilot's licence for landing his Aerospatiale Twin Squirrel helicopter in the grounds of the South Walsham Hall Hotel in Norfolk and creating a "mini tornado" that sent chairs, tables and ashtrays flying. <hr></blockquote>
What oversight exists on the action of these people?
According to the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2002%2F01%2F31%2Fnchop31.xml" target="_blank">Daily Telegraph</a> story here;
[quote] The CAA is studying whether to revoke Bigwood's pilot's licence for landing his Aerospatiale Twin Squirrel helicopter in the grounds of the South Walsham Hall Hotel in Norfolk and creating a "mini tornado" that sent chairs, tables and ashtrays flying. <hr></blockquote>
What oversight exists on the action of these people?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A number of people obviously know about this case. If anyone prefers to ignore what they say, and base an opinion up speculation and Press reports, that's their right. A strange approach in my view, but nonetheless their right.
I won't comment on this case, but Inspector Lestrade's idea of a prosecuting barrister's role is quite wrong, and does need correcting.
It is NOT a barrister's job to 'win the case when he is prosecuting. A barrister has an important responsibility when acting as Prosecuting Counsel: To present the prosecution case impartially, and fairly.. .For example. .He must NOT excite emotion to influence the jury. . .He must try to calm emotions down, NOT stir them up, or play to them.. .He must NOT make emotive comments which may wrongly influence the jury against the defendant.. .He should NOT try to sway the juy by building up a terrifying picture of terrible things that might have happened if they did not happen.. .Where (as is usually the case) there are different descriptions of an event, he should NOT adopt the worst/most emotive version as the prosecution case - especially when there is reason to believe the worst version may be an exaggeration of an irritated or distressed witness.. .He must NOT try prejudice the against the defendant. He has a duty to try to ensure that the jury is not influenced by irrelevant prejudices.
Of course there are legitimate 'tricks of the trade' in advocacy, just as in every other job. But, and this is a very important exception, it is NOT a prosecuting barrister's job to do everything he can, fair or unfair, to 'win' the case.
The same principles of fairness and impartiality apply whether you're prosecuting somone for careless driving or for murder - and I've done both many times at different stages of my career.
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>
I won't comment on this case, but Inspector Lestrade's idea of a prosecuting barrister's role is quite wrong, and does need correcting.
It is NOT a barrister's job to 'win the case when he is prosecuting. A barrister has an important responsibility when acting as Prosecuting Counsel: To present the prosecution case impartially, and fairly.. .For example. .He must NOT excite emotion to influence the jury. . .He must try to calm emotions down, NOT stir them up, or play to them.. .He must NOT make emotive comments which may wrongly influence the jury against the defendant.. .He should NOT try to sway the juy by building up a terrifying picture of terrible things that might have happened if they did not happen.. .Where (as is usually the case) there are different descriptions of an event, he should NOT adopt the worst/most emotive version as the prosecution case - especially when there is reason to believe the worst version may be an exaggeration of an irritated or distressed witness.. .He must NOT try prejudice the against the defendant. He has a duty to try to ensure that the jury is not influenced by irrelevant prejudices.
Of course there are legitimate 'tricks of the trade' in advocacy, just as in every other job. But, and this is a very important exception, it is NOT a prosecuting barrister's job to do everything he can, fair or unfair, to 'win' the case.
The same principles of fairness and impartiality apply whether you're prosecuting somone for careless driving or for murder - and I've done both many times at different stages of my career.
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]</p>
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to make the same point but I took the Miss Approaches to the pub for lunch and FL has beaten me to it.
As usual FL's point is well made.
The role of prosecuting and defence counsel are quite different. Whilst the job of defence counsel is to fearlessly defend his client and put forward his client's instructions however bizarre or ludicrous they may appear, the Bar's code of conduct makes it quite plain that prosecuting counsel should see themselves as a minister of justice and therefore under an obligation to see that justice is done as opposed to securing a conviction at all costs.
One of the strange paradox's in this case is that the CAA's allegation of recklessnes involved the pilot making an approach to the Hotel without circling or carrying out a recce pass first. The course he adopted was to make a relatively quick approach minimising noise to the occupants and locality. The jury then hear about wealthy businessman, 22 year old female passenger etc.
Wouldn't 99% of flash g**'s picking up a bit of totty have used the opportunity of a recce circuit to whazz the place and impress the bird?
Of course if you were a sensible pilot, sensitive to noise complaints, largely using your helicopter for business and collecting an employee....
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Legalapproach ]</p>
As usual FL's point is well made.
The role of prosecuting and defence counsel are quite different. Whilst the job of defence counsel is to fearlessly defend his client and put forward his client's instructions however bizarre or ludicrous they may appear, the Bar's code of conduct makes it quite plain that prosecuting counsel should see themselves as a minister of justice and therefore under an obligation to see that justice is done as opposed to securing a conviction at all costs.
One of the strange paradox's in this case is that the CAA's allegation of recklessnes involved the pilot making an approach to the Hotel without circling or carrying out a recce pass first. The course he adopted was to make a relatively quick approach minimising noise to the occupants and locality. The jury then hear about wealthy businessman, 22 year old female passenger etc.
Wouldn't 99% of flash g**'s picking up a bit of totty have used the opportunity of a recce circuit to whazz the place and impress the bird?
Of course if you were a sensible pilot, sensitive to noise complaints, largely using your helicopter for business and collecting an employee....
[ 03 February 2002: Message edited by: Legalapproach ]</p>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot!. .Inspector L asked whether the defence barrister objected to any tactics used by the prosecutor. . .As before, I won't comment on the specific case.. .But, let's just say someone who's been round the block a few times, knows how to counter such tactics if they occur and continue.. .There are a number of versions, but the following sequence works quite well.
Initial Stage - 'Let it go - Don't react'
Then comes the Look at Opponent and Frown stage
If that doesn't work, comes the 'Shake Head in Disapproval' stage.
(More puzzled than angry, you understand.)
Next is the 'Look up at Ceiling Shaking Head in Disbelief' (whilst rolling eyes) stage. (As a helicopter pilot, I can do both these things at the same time.)
Then comes 'Look at Jury whilst Rolling Eyes'
. .You can then assess the reaction of the jury.
Next time it happens comes the 'Look at Jury Expressionless' stage.. .(The jury should by now be rolling their own eyes and/or shaking their own heads.)
Having ensured you've got the jury on side, you're ready for the big one - 'Oh Really!!! Must we have any more of this?'
If you've done the above sequence properly, there should now be audible mutterings of support from the jury, and the Judge says something to your opponent like "I'm not sure this is going to help the jury decide the issues, Mr X."
Then comes the last and most satisfying stage. You catch your opponent's eye and ...
That's it .... back to work.
[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]
Initial Stage - 'Let it go - Don't react'
Then comes the Look at Opponent and Frown stage
If that doesn't work, comes the 'Shake Head in Disapproval' stage.
(More puzzled than angry, you understand.) Next is the 'Look up at Ceiling Shaking Head in Disbelief' (whilst rolling eyes) stage. (As a helicopter pilot, I can do both these things at the same time.)
Then comes 'Look at Jury whilst Rolling Eyes'
. .You can then assess the reaction of the jury.
Next time it happens comes the 'Look at Jury Expressionless' stage.. .(The jury should by now be rolling their own eyes and/or shaking their own heads.)
Having ensured you've got the jury on side, you're ready for the big one - 'Oh Really!!! Must we have any more of this?'
If you've done the above sequence properly, there should now be audible mutterings of support from the jury, and the Judge says something to your opponent like "I'm not sure this is going to help the jury decide the issues, Mr X."
Then comes the last and most satisfying stage. You catch your opponent's eye and ...
That's it .... back to work.
[ 04 February 2002: Message edited by: Flying Lawyer ]
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 16th Aug 2005 at 21:50.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL
Have used all of the above but then I seem to recall that I learnt from a Master during my pupillage.
In addition to the soto voce (not) "Oh really" and "Oh for goodness sake" I find that rising with the words;. ."While I appreciate my learned friend is extremely experienced and obviously is trying to make a valid point, I am a little concerned as I fail to understand where this is leading"
Judge usually responds with "Yes, well Mr Bloggs, where is this leading?" whereupon opponent has to explain what he is trying to achieve or if realising he is in difficulty in explaining says "I believe I have made the point and will leave it there"
Alternatively if you know your judge, find an excuse to see him in his chambers and tell him what a c*** your opponent is! Of course, personally I would never try this and I understand that it generally only works if you are blonde, leggy and appearing in front of Mr Justice Deed!
Earpiece
Re contempt, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to publications (which could include a bulletin board) which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This topic was considered in a thread on the Southend Drugs bust some months ago.
For my part, having read the contributions on this thread I don't think that any of the comments recorded in this case would amount to contempt. What might amount to contempt would be publishing information that had been or would be withheld from the jury ie previous convictions or excluded evidence (none of which applied in this case in any event) and the test is whether the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Have used all of the above but then I seem to recall that I learnt from a Master during my pupillage.
In addition to the soto voce (not) "Oh really" and "Oh for goodness sake" I find that rising with the words;. ."While I appreciate my learned friend is extremely experienced and obviously is trying to make a valid point, I am a little concerned as I fail to understand where this is leading"
Judge usually responds with "Yes, well Mr Bloggs, where is this leading?" whereupon opponent has to explain what he is trying to achieve or if realising he is in difficulty in explaining says "I believe I have made the point and will leave it there"
Alternatively if you know your judge, find an excuse to see him in his chambers and tell him what a c*** your opponent is! Of course, personally I would never try this and I understand that it generally only works if you are blonde, leggy and appearing in front of Mr Justice Deed!
Earpiece
Re contempt, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 applies to publications (which could include a bulletin board) which create a substantial risk that the course of public justice will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. This topic was considered in a thread on the Southend Drugs bust some months ago.
For my part, having read the contributions on this thread I don't think that any of the comments recorded in this case would amount to contempt. What might amount to contempt would be publishing information that had been or would be withheld from the jury ie previous convictions or excluded evidence (none of which applied in this case in any event) and the test is whether the course of justice would be seriously impeded or prejudiced.
Legal,
I wonder if you would be able to explain my previous query, ie why does the CAA, which appears to me to be acting as a quasi-Crown prosecutor, have the right to demand costs? Is it normal for the crown to claim costs in these sort of cases, or indeed in any criminal prosecution (and is this a criminal prosecution, inasmuch as the defendant will have a criminal record as a result)? Does a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer have to pay costs when/if they are found guilty, and if not, what makes this type of case different.
TIA.
I wonder if you would be able to explain my previous query, ie why does the CAA, which appears to me to be acting as a quasi-Crown prosecutor, have the right to demand costs? Is it normal for the crown to claim costs in these sort of cases, or indeed in any criminal prosecution (and is this a criminal prosecution, inasmuch as the defendant will have a criminal record as a result)? Does a burglar, or a rapist, or a murderer have to pay costs when/if they are found guilty, and if not, what makes this type of case different.
TIA.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any prosecutor can claim the costs of the prosecution against a convicted defendant, including the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS make a claim for costs in most cases but in reality where somebody is being sent to prison for a long time ie rape, murder, any application would be academic and so often is not made for practical reasons. Courts often make costs orders in favour of the prosecution where there is a non-custodial sentence or the defendant clearly has the means to pay.
The most common would be a motoring matter in the magistrates court where a guilty plea would costs somewhere between £50-100. Careless Driving guilty plea - fine a couple of hundred pounds, 3-5 penalty points on your licence plus costs of maybe £70 or £80 -v- negligent flying; fine £5,000 costs of circa £39,000.
Had the CPS prosecuted this helicopter pilot they would have asked for their costs and probably have got them. The difference is that they would have amounted to a couple, rather than tens, of thousands of pounds.
The CPS normally only apply for the costs of the actual proceedings in court. What they never do is claim for the costs of the investigation ie the costs of the police etc.
The most common would be a motoring matter in the magistrates court where a guilty plea would costs somewhere between £50-100. Careless Driving guilty plea - fine a couple of hundred pounds, 3-5 penalty points on your licence plus costs of maybe £70 or £80 -v- negligent flying; fine £5,000 costs of circa £39,000.
Had the CPS prosecuted this helicopter pilot they would have asked for their costs and probably have got them. The difference is that they would have amounted to a couple, rather than tens, of thousands of pounds.
The CPS normally only apply for the costs of the actual proceedings in court. What they never do is claim for the costs of the investigation ie the costs of the police etc.
Legal,
Thanks for the answer. Can't say it surprises me, but it would smack of inequality, and open to abuse. Almost a 'further punishment', but then who said the law was just <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Thanks for the answer. Can't say it surprises me, but it would smack of inequality, and open to abuse. Almost a 'further punishment', but then who said the law was just <img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John. .The system usually works quite well. . .As Legalapproach explained earlier, although prosecuting authorities are entitled to ask for all their costs of prosecuting, in practice they consider it unreasonable to do so and ask only for a contribution - whatever the means of the defendant.. .To the best of my knowledge, the CAA is the only exception.
Not wishing to be too persistent on this, but would there be grounds to appeal the costs? No doubt the Oz legal system is based upon yours, whereby costs are examined and allowed according to a scale of fees, regardless of what the barrister/QC/clerk have actually charged.
Could the CAA be taken to task, be required to justify their expenses, and therefore the costs awarded? I just know that someone within our CASA will see this as a precedent for future action.... <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Could the CAA be taken to task, be required to justify their expenses, and therefore the costs awarded? I just know that someone within our CASA will see this as a precedent for future action.... <img src="frown.gif" border="0"> <img src="frown.gif" border="0">