Is it normal in the UK that the prosecution in criminal cases recover their costs from persons who are found guilty?
That’s normal in Germany AFAIK.
Some caveats with your insurance
1 your legal insurance may or may not cover aviation activity (mine does not, in general)
2 your insurance has a discretion based on the merits of your case/defense
(Your assumption on 100% is definitely wrong – I am not insured for legal costs in aviation ;-) i believe in negotiations and that has worked well so far)
Caveat with the defense against a fine: you may not “win” , i.e. get completely cleared of tje offense, but get a reduced fine – your costs and you have to bear part of the costs of the proceedings.
was talking about the CAA costs, not the cost of defense.
Yes indeed. The CAA gets the court to enforce its own (the CAA’s) costs against the defendant (if pleads G or is found G).
Is it normal in the UK that the prosecution in criminal cases recover their costs from persons who are found guilty?
I don’t think so, generally, (it would bankrupt most defendants) but that is what the UK CAA does.
Would be interesting if someone tried the Neil Hamilton defence with the CAA – https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1447758/Hamiltons-claim-victory-over-speeding-fine.html
More difficult, since in your compulsory (AFAIK) flight preparation (they could bust you on that if missing) you have to determine the PIC of that leg.
He would be on the hook.
In case of a FP you even stated it officially.
There might be hypothetical cases of pilot incapacitation or necessary handover of controls, but in these special situations it appears even more difficult to claim that you cannot remember…
And if it is just a convenience (or inconvenience) handover of controls, then the PIC would still be in charge, wouldn’t he ?
I think in most cases they would bust the other pilot for not being named on the insurance 
Does the Hamilton defence work with cars anymore? I thought they would just bust the registered owner. I do remember a very old trick (from about 30 years ago so no doubt doesn’t work anymore) where a company car driver would get off by saying he wasn’t the driver, and the company not having appointed anybody to the position of a Fleet Manager.
In the case of an infringement, it is very obvious that in many cases they cannot establish who the pilot was, or even what aircraft it was. You aren’t going to hear about these anywhere. Obviously the effort applied will be proportional to the severity; if you shut down Luton airport for half an hour, they will get all the military radar data out, etc. OTOH I bet the people who did that were on the radio anyway (with some other unit) and simply didn’t know where they were. Nobody would do that intentionally (and in radio silence).
BTW the list of (successful) CAA prosecutions is here so you can get an idea of the costs applied for by the CAA. The court in question is usually a Magistrates’ one which is the bottom level in the system and the court costs would likely be very low. If the costs shown are a few k then most of that would be from the CAA.
The principle in the UK is that the guilty defendant pays, or pays towards, the costs of bringing a prosecution.
In the case of CPS and Police, this is generally not calculated for each case, but is according to a scale: £85-£100 for an early guilty plea, about £300 for a simple magistrates court trial etc.
For non-CPS (including local authorities, public transport companies, RSPCA and CAA, for example) they will document the actual costs of bringing the prosecution and the court will determine if they are justified and proportionate, and will take into account the defendant’s ability to pay before making an award.
Courts try to ensure that the costs are not out of proportion to the penalty, but that is not always possible.
There is nothing different or special about the CAA’s approach to costs. If you plead not guilty to abusing a dog, fare evasion, cutting down a protected tree or running a dirty restaurant, you will be in the same position.
Or it’s all a great big conspiracy to grind people down. I forget which.
Timothy wrote:
The principle in the UK is that the guilty defendant pays, or pays towards, the costs of bringing a prosecution.In the case of CPS and Police, this is generally not calculated for each case, but is according to a scale: £85-£100 for an early guilty plea, about £300 for a simple magistrates court trial etc.
Wow! Obviously these figures are not near actual costs so they are more like an additional punishment for not confessing before the trial.
Or it’s all a great big conspiracy to grind people down. I forget which.
I wouldn’t say that, but I am surprised because it doesn’t happen in Sweden (indeed, the government also pays the defense costs, within reason) and my spontaneous feeling is that this should not happen in a just legal system.
There are many, many things about Sweden which are better than the UK. That gap is about to widen.
Airborne_Again wrote:
Obviously these figures are not near actual costs
It would be interesting to see the basis of your calculation.
