Thanks Creampuff – we got that far all on our lonesome, understand the way of it. No problems. That leaves a couple of annoying little details hanging in the breeze; to debate them fully would take all week and would no doubt have to be 'case' specific. As stated, we are but babes in the wood so to take a broader view on lets call them, 'types' of cases, such as the suspension of a license or parts thereof.
Given that CASA can and do arbitrarily, without having to provide a shred of evidence cancel or suspend at will, effectively preventing that person from earning a living, based on a catch all excuse of public safety is bollocks. For every 10 that fight perhaps one ever ends up back where they were. Review Max Davies case for a prime example of one of a dozen.
Max v The Beast.
Suspend for a period, absolutely if required, but then there must be a part where a court assessment followed by punishment (if required) can be dealt with under the rules of evidence. Then restoration and absolution (done the crime, do the time).
The AAT as you quite rightly point out 'belongs' to the regulator, the rules of evidence are 'fluffy' and there is little or no case to answer when blatant misuse of 'hearsay evidence' is embraced by pro barristers.
JQ v The beast.
As it stands there is no end game, permanently denying a pilot the right to earn a living by stealth cannot, by any measure be considered fair, reasonable or just. If the CASA is not going to depend on the criminal code and penalties, why are they written into the regulations with such vehemence?. Pointless.
For my mortgage, it's an injunction then prove it or loose it.
CP - CASA would love you for it, I suspect ....
Oh boy, my chance to be a CASA pin up boy, bliss. Make a change from a mug shot on a dart board. Perhaps I'll start a CAA fan club.
