Strict Liability will stay in the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations despite aviation community feedback that found the concept offensive.
Strict Liability laws remove the need for prosecutors to prove intent, knowledge, recklessness or negligence when prosecuting; they need only to prove the person commited the act.
In a recent release of responses to aviation community feedback, CASA stated "... the strict liability clauses remain. CASA uses just culture principles during investigation and enforcement. On the rare occasions when penalty provisions are used they are proportionate to the offence committed."
When Australian Flying asked CASA to elaborate, a spokesperson said "It is common for public health, safety and welfare regulations to be strict liability offences. Most motor traffic rules in Australia are cast as strict liability offences, as are contraventions of virtually every New Zealand Civil Aviation Rule.
"The statement indicating a breach of a particular regulation is a strict liability offence has been required in Australian legislation since the mid-1990s as a transparency measure. In the past, the courts simply inferred that such offences were strict liability offences.
"CASA adopts a ‘just culture’ approach when considering the enforcement of any regulatory requirement. This means in most cases it is not likely that a matter will be referred for criminal prosecution.
"It is important to understand that an honest mistake of fact is, and has always been, a complete defence to a strict liability offence."
Strict liability was applied to aviation in the early 2000s, and has proven very unpopular because it meant CASA could now take operators and pilots to court based only on the evidence that the act was committed, which many believed provided the regulator with opportunities to abuse power.