Ms Smith owns a house in Townsville, North Queensland. It sits on a 1,000 m2 block of land on a quiet street. Her property is separated from her neighbours on all sides by a wooden fence that is 2 metres high. The property next door is owned by Mr Patterson who works shifts at the local hospital. The two exchanged mobile phone numbers a few years ago when Mr Patterson went overseas for three weeks and asked Ms Smith to keep an eye on the house. About three months ago, Ms Smith received a video message from Mr Patterson on her mobile telephone which included footage of a large python in her back garden and a message warning her to check the python had gone before letting her dog, Fluffy, into the garden. Ms Smith enquired as to how Mr Patterson had obtained the footage, which viewed the garden from above. Mr Patterson responded that he had been 'playing around with his new drone'. Since this time, Ms Smith has noticed the drone hovering above her back garden on an almost daily basis. Sometimes it hovers high above tree level, but last week she was getting dressed in her bedroom (which looks onto the back garden) and noticed the drone hovering at window height near the window to her bedroom. She is not sure whether the drone could film through the window, but she is concerned Mr Patterson may be using the drone to record footage of her in her home and in her back garden.

She has raised this with Mr Patterson, but he insists that he is not breaking the law and that he is using his drone for safety and 'neighbourhood watch' purposes. It therefore appears that he is unwilling to stop using the drone in this manner. I have another trainee looking into whether Mr Patterson is committing any offences under the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), so I do not need you to look at this. Instead, I would like you to ascertain the following:

1. Whether there are any restrictions on the use of the drone in a residential area under civil aviation safety laws and any method of enforcing such restrictions if they apply to this case; and
2. Whether Ms Smith could rely on the torts of trespass to land or nuisance to prevent Mr Patterson further engaging in this conduct and, if both are available, which of the two is more suitable.

I do not need you to look at any other areas of the law other than those indicated above.

Please note the following: the drone is small and lightweight. Ms Smith has seen the same drone for sale in the local electrical store and it is $199 and weighs just 1.5 kg. It has a camera that can record video and take photographs and it has a sound recording feature.