Accused pilot’s ‘glaring’ invoices
A PILOT accused of illegally flying a group of North Queensland MPS and fraudulently receiving government payments tried to “hide” his alleged offending in his invoices, a court has been told.
The claims were made by Crown Prosecutor Edward Coker during his closing address in the trial of North Queensland pilot Josh Hoch, 36.
Hoch has pleaded not guilty to 14 charges which allege he flew charter flights for members of Katter’s Australian Party between 2011 and 2015, without the authority to charge for the trips.
It is further alleged by the Crown that Hoch was then paid by the government for the flights.
Hoch is alleged to have conducted the flights without holding a Civil Aviation Authorisation and Air Operator Certificate.
It is also alleged he flew with a private pilot’s licence instead of the required commercial licence.
Hoch’s defence has argued the flights were conducted under a “cost sharing” arrangement.
A cost sharing arrangement involves costs being paid equally by all persons on the flight, in relation to the costs of the flight – not for the service itself, and not for a profit.
It is not suggested that the Katters have engaged in any wrongdoing
Multiple invoices were shown to Townsville District Court which Mr Coker suggested to the jury had “glaring issues”.
He suggested Hoch had known his alleged offending was illegal under the Civil Aviation Act, and that he had also attempted to “hide” it.
He pointed to instances on invoices Hoch had issued after allegedly flying Kennedy MP Bob Katter and Hill MP Shane Knuth – which included Hoch allegedly recording as charging standdown fees, an “arbitrary variance” in rates, and a “Katter discount”.
On some invoices a handwritten note, allegedly written by Hoch, stated the flight had been completed as a cost sharing arrangement with the “informed consent” of all on board.
The court previously heard Traeger MP Robbie Katter
give evidence that he engaged Hoch on what he understood to have been on a charter basis.
Mr Coker suggested the additional charges and the “discount” on the invoices was evidence of both a commercial relationship and of the operation of a commercial charter business.
“Ultimately, taken as a whole, clearly (Hoch) knew he couldn't do it, (he) knew it was against the law, and wasn’t entitled to payment,” Mr Coker said.
Barrister Michael Hibble in his closing address suggested the entire case was one of “hindsight”.
He said there were “gaps” in the case due to the “lack of evidence” put forward by the Crown.
“… What is the evidence that he actually flew the flight? There’s a gap there because the records simply aren’t there,” Mr Hibble said.
He put to the jury a hypothetical that if Hoch had been “deliberately doing sham invoices”, why would he not record a fake AOC.
“Nobody seems to have checked he had an AOC … if that is hiding, it is hiding in plain sight,” he said.
The jury on Wednesday afternoon retired to deliberate.