The definition of an aviation document and what document, if any, a former commercial hang-gliding pilot held when he was allegedly caught flying more than three years ago was debated in the Queenstown District Court yesterday.
John Roderick Smith (39) denies four charges brought against him under the Civil Aviation Act, relating to separate incidents in December 2005, January and October 2006, when he allegedly operated a hang-glider without holding the appropriate aviation document, a hang-glider pilot's certificate.
Smith's "certificate" was revoked by the CAA in September 2005, following a second investigation into allegations he had been "dive bombing" and "low flying" around people.
However, yesterday, defence counsel Sonia Vidal contended Smith was a paid member of the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) until October 2006, which enabled him to fly in New Zealand.
She told Judge John Strettel, of Christchurch, the NZHGPA had the delegated authority to issue "hang-glider pilot certificates", but she had never seen such a document.
However, the NZHGPA allowed pilots with overseas ratings to fly in New Zealand, provided they paid a membership fee to the association.
She presented a letter from the former administrator of the association, confirming Smith was a paid member until October 31, 2006.
When the CAA revoked his certificate, it did not revoke his membership of the association, meaning he was still able to fly, she said.
Asked by Judge Strettel if there was any evidence Smith " "held anything", Ms Vidal said her client did not have to establish that; "CAA have to establish that he did not."
CAA counsel Phil Shamy said, as he understood it, Ms Vidal was alleging Smith held "some other document" which allowed him to fly and asked: "What is this other document?"
He also referred to correspondence between John Jones, the former director and chief executive of CAA, Smith and Ms Vidal, regarding the revocation of Smith's pilot certificate.
"Really, at the end of the day, if [Ms Vidal] is correct . . . it is contradicted by all of the evidence in this case, it is contradicted by their correspondence - what were they arguing about then?"
Mr Shamy submitted it might be possible to take an "adverse inference" from the defendant's decision not to give evidence.
"In this case, they are alleging, quite clearly, that a number of witnesses are mistaken in their identification of Mr Smith [flying].
"Yet, there is no evidence from Mr Smith himself that he was not flying; that it was not him."
Judge Strettel yesterday adjourned the matter until this morning, when he will give his finding.
