Charges were for piloting helicopter without documentation, impeding investigation
The New Zealand Court of Appeal upheld convictions against a man charged for piloting a helicopter without the necessary documentation, upon considering this an appropriate case for the trial to proceed in his absence and for his appeal’s dismissal for want of prosecution.
In Thow v Civil Aviation Authority [2026] NZCA 455, the applicant said he was a pilot involved in flying in both private and commercial capacities since the early 1990s. His charges also claimed he interfered with a Civil Aviation Authority investigation against him.
Before the District Court, the applicant did not attend the judge-alone trial. In January 2022, Judge Robinson expressed concern that the applicant was giving the District Court “something of a run-around.”
Judge Robinson decided to proceed with the trial in the applicant’s absence under s 122(3)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 (CPA).
Confined to narrow issues, the trial considered evidence focusing on whether the applicant had the aviation documents needed to operate a helicopter and carry passengers on specific occasions.
Given a certificate tendered as an exhibit, a rebuttable presumption arose that the applicant lacked a valid air operator certificate at the time.
Judge Robinson convicted the applicant of strict liability offences on five charges under the Civil Aviation Act 1990:
The applicant applied for a retrial under s 125(1) of the CPA and sought to strike out the proceeding. Judge Robinson denied both applications.
The applicant was sentenced to 325 hours of community work.
Before the High Court, the applicant appealed against his convictions. However, he failed to make himself available for the pursuit of his appeal.
In a reserved judgment dated 1 August 2025, Justice Osborne dismissed the applicant’s conviction appeal for want of prosecution. Upon considering the substantive grounds of appeal, the High Court judge saw nothing in the applicant’s materials to cast doubt on the convictions.
Before the Court of Appeal, the applicant requested leave to bring a second conviction appeal. To support his leave application, he filed around 1,500 documents.
The appeal court granted an extension of time. However, the appeal court ruled that the case failed to satisfy the high threshold for leave to bring a second conviction appeal.
Given that decision, the appeal court found it unnecessary to formally determine the applicant’s application to adduce additional evidence on appeal and his other applications for this file.
The Court of Appeal saw no basis to interfere, no matter of general or public importance, and no miscarriage of justice. The appeal court observed that the applicant:
Here are some other news stories involving aviation.
Subject to certain conditions, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand issued a 14 May 2026 decision giving Air New Zealand permission to appeal on three legal questions identified in its application for leave arising from an Employment Court decision in favour of one of its captains.
An independent review function announced on 20 March 2025 enabled individuals and organisations to seek an expert independent review of specified civil aviation regulatory decisions made by or on behalf of the civil aviation director.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
