R v Sheehan
Case
•
[1999] QCA 461
•9/11/1999
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Sheehan [1999] QCA 461
[1999] QCA 461
9/11/1999
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant appealed against his conviction for operating an aircraft for charter without an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC). The facts of the case were that on 25 October 1996, the appellant piloted a Cessna 210 between Longreach, Queensland and Moree, New South Wales for a charter flight, without the required AOC for himself or his company, Crossroads Aviation. A mechanical difficulty had interrupted a charter flight by McAlister Airways, leading to the appellant being contacted to complete the journey for $2,300. The appellant argued that he had operated under the authority of an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation, although this was contested by the prosecution and the evidence presented.
The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to another party. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the onus of proof on him to demonstrate that he had lawful authority. The court had to consider the provisions of section 15D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which addresses the burden of proof in cases where an act is an offence if done without lawful authority, and whether this section applied to the appellant's situation.
The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he had lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation. The evidence showed that Alpine Aviation had no AOC at the time of the flight, and there was no financial or practical connection between Alpine Aviation and Crossroads Aviation. The court also noted that the letter from the proprietor of Alpine Aviation, which the appellant relied upon, was ambiguous and did not provide clear evidence of authorisation. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had the lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to another party. The appellant argued that the trial judge had incorrectly placed the onus of proof on him to demonstrate that he had lawful authority. The court had to consider the provisions of section 15D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which addresses the burden of proof in cases where an act is an offence if done without lawful authority, and whether this section applied to the appellant's situation.
The court found that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that he had lawful authority to operate the aircraft for charter under an AOC issued to Alpine Aviation. The evidence showed that Alpine Aviation had no AOC at the time of the flight, and there was no financial or practical connection between Alpine Aviation and Crossroads Aviation. The court also noted that the letter from the proprietor of Alpine Aviation, which the appellant relied upon, was ambiguous and did not provide clear evidence of authorisation. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was upheld.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Aviation Law
Legal Concepts
-
Administrative Law Violation
-
Air Operator's Certificate
-
Burden of Proof
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Sheehan [1999] QCA 461
Most Recent Citation
Coburn (NSW Department of Planning, Industry and Environment) v Cool-Off Pty Ltd [2021] NSWLC 6
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Yabsley v Acting Assistant Commissioner Michael Keating
[2015] QCAT 258
Gerhardt v Queensland Building & Construction Commission
[2014] QCAT 139
Cases Cited
22
Statutory Material Cited
0
R v Field
[1996] QCA 477
Taudevin v Brambles
[1995] IRCA 336
Dowling v Bowie
[1952] HCA 63