02/07/23
My reference Pprune #2719
Dear Ms Spence,
Please accept this follow up correspondence in regard to our meeting in October 2023.
Thank you for facilitating a meeting of 2 hours. I appreciate that you won’t walk out the room on the 121st minute, nevertheless I believe that we can achieve what we need to achieve, in a well-intentioned two-hour meeting.
I have had a few days to reflect, and after a rather restless night, made the decision to write to you this morning.
I don’t want you to be “broadsided” at that meeting, so the purpose of this letter is to ensure that we have clear expectations, and I appreciate you outlining, that you don’t want to be going over “old ground”.
Please understand that from my perspective, my business, livelihood, health has been impacted. Our family lost absolutely everything, including our family home as a result of this.
My mental health has been devastated by this entire episode, and the sad truth is that in the depths of depression, and on the cusp of taking my own life a couple of months ago, I ended up in a psychiatric facility. I am now a patient of one of Australia’s leading psychiatrists, and a psychologist. After a lifetime of avoiding any medication, I am now on antidepressants. My family lost absolutely everything. Their home, their savings, their Father and Husband.
This matter in its entirety was completely avoidable.
From my personal perspective, without any doubt, the most heartbreaking aspect of this entire matter has been my loss of self-esteem and self-respect because of all the people that have been impacted by placing their trust and confidence in me.
I would like to achieve the following outcomes during that two-hour meeting.
Expected Outcome One- Act of Grace Payment
I am of the opinion that CASA unlawfully and with targeted malice took action that closed my business and was entirely unnecessary. There were no legitimate safety concerns nor were there any regulatory breaches, and at all times I operated fully in accordance with all CASA approved procedures in my Exposition/Operations Manual.
I believe that I have a valid basis for a claim against CASA. That is not my preferred option.
Throughout the last five years, I have gone further than could be reasonably expected of any person to avoid litigation. Litigation suggests to me that there is a complete breakdown of “good intent”. It is unnecessarily combative, protracted and distracts resources.
My preferred course of action is to put forward a request for an Act of Grace payment. This request would not be successful if it were opposed by CASA.
My hope is that An Act of Grace payment could be considered an Alternative Dispute Resolution, as outlined in
Appendix B of the Legal Services Directions 2017, where it states
“the Commonwealth and Commonwealth agencies are to behave as model litigants in the conduct of litigation.
In civil litigation matters, Model Litigant rules provide that government agencies should, wherever possible:
- act honestly, consistently, and fairly in handling claims and litigation
- deal with claims promptly
- make an early assessment of the government’s prospects of success
- pay legitimate claims promptly
- not take advantage of a party who lacks resources to litigate a legitimate claim
- keep costs to a minimum e.g. not rely on a merely technical defence
- consider alternative dispute resolution (ADR) options.”
At the end of that two-hour meeting, I would like to obtain a decision from you and the Chair of the Board, whether or not CASA will oppose that claim for an Act of Grace payment.
For simplicity of the Act of Grace Payment, it would be for the purpose of compensating/reimbursing staff, customers, students, Suppliers, the other businesses closed down by CASA actions, and others who were dependant on me.
It would not contain any claim for me personally, or for the harm and trauma caused to me. I would waive any claim to those aspects in the interests of a prompt resolution, by way of an Act of Grace Payment By rectifying the harm caused to so many, it would lift an enormous mental burden from me, and at least go some way to resolving this entire matter and allowing me to move forward with my life.
It seems entirely reasonable that if CASA simply “changes its mind” about a business after 10 years, the persons affected by that change of “interpretation” of the law, should not be impacted, just as a homeowner is reimbursed when the house is to be bulldozed for a road. It is an entirely reasonable expectation.
If the CASA Chair and CEO determine that they will oppose an Act of Grace Payment, then I can see little benefit in waiting until October to receive that information.
Could you please advise if you would be in a position to advise me at the conclusion of that meeting if CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment?
Expected Outcome Two- Why this matter could not be fully resolved in 4 hours.
As you are aware, I am fully satisfied that this matter could have been fully resolved in four hours, yet it dragged on for over 8 months, and was still not resolved. I am fully satisfied that if CASA was acting in Good Faith this matter and its associated harm could have been completely avoided.
I would like to obtain CASAs explanation on why this matter could not be fully resolved in four hours.
There must have been some reason from CASAs perspective as to why it was not easily resolved in one meeting of less than four hours. If I could explain that to my family, the people impacted, and the wider industry, it would assist me greatly.
In order to go someway to restoring my reputation I would like to be able to explain to those that were dependent on me, as to why I could not resolve this apparently simple matter to CASAs full satisfaction. It seems an entirely reasonable expectation, and I am sure you will concur.
Expected Outcome Three- The single issue was all personnekl were not directly employed by me.
The most distressing part of the last five years has been that I have no idea what I did wrong. I do not know what piece of legislation was breached. I don’t know what specific mistake that I made, I have no idea which of my procedures was deficient, I have no idea of any safety concerns.
My understanding is that because I utilised personnel under my AOC that were not always also my employees, I was in breach of the regulations.
That was effectively the single issue.
Had every one of those personnel operating under my AOC been directly employed by me, then CASA would never have raised any concerns at all, and my business would not ever have been contacted by CASA or had any action taken against it, as Craig Martin from CASA advised me in writing, ‘For the avoidance of doubt, flight training can be conducted by APTA Employees only, not Employees of Affiliates’
I would like to exit that meeting with a clear understanding of this requirement by CASA. It is not a requirement, and has never been a legislative requirement. This seems to be a restriction placed only on my own flying school and not on the other 300 flight training organisations in Australia.
So, my question would be. If all personnel operating under my AOC were also directly employed by me, would CASA ever have imposed the trading restrictions, and if so, could you identify the justification.
Expected Outcome Four- Allegation of misfeasancev in public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck Executive Manager of Legal, International and Regulatory Affairs.
One month prior to that meeting I will provide.
· The CASA Board,
· The CASA CEO, The CASA Industry Complaints Commissioner
· My Local Labor MP for Chisholm, Ms Carina Garland
with a substantial document outlining my allegations of Misfeasance in Public office against Mr Jonathan Aleck, CASA Executive Manager of Legal, International, and Regulatory Affairs.
If that document can be considered prior to that meeting, my intention would be that I formally submit that document to the CASA ICC for an internal investigation.
If CASA choose not to conduct their own internal investigation, then I will pursue alternatives.
I believe that Mr Aleck would support that request. I have made significant allegations against his conduct, and I expect that he would be supportive of any investigation to refute my allegations.
Expected Outcome Five
On the initial notification of 23rd October 2018, CASA placed trading restrictions on my business, based on alleged contravention of the following four rules and regulations, and these are the only four allegations that have ever been put forward to me.
· Paragraph 7 of the Aviation Ruling
· Section 27 (8) of the Civil Aviation Act
· Section 29 of the Civil Aviation Act
· CASR 141.050
I would like to get a clear and concise response from CASA, after almost five years. Is the CASA position that I did, or I did not break those regulations.
Consider a person that is charged with an offence by the police, and he has to wait five years to have his guilt or innocence determined in a court of law. If over the next five years, the Police become aware that in fact no offence had occurred then they should be prepared to admit that, rather than attempt to pursue the matter, and possibly in a corrupt manner.
The point is that after 5 years of continuing investigation by the police, the reasonable expectation of the Police is that they are as confident, or more confident, of their position after 5 years.
If they are confident, they should be able to confidently restate their position, at all times throughout that five-year investigation, and right up until they walk into the Courtroom.
At our meeting, I would be seeking that same commitment from CASA i.e., a yes or no response to each of those four allegations made in October 2018.
It is an entirely reasonable request as I am sure you will agree.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with yourself, the CASA Chair, and Industry Complaints Commissioner in October 2018, I look forward to your considered response. Hopefully with clear expectations and good intent, we can resolve this matter in its entirety before the end of October 2023.
I must however make it very clear that if you inform me that CASA will oppose my request for an Act of Grace Payment, I give you my solemn word that I will pursue legal action, as I will have pursued every other option that is available to me.
You are aware of the aviation forums of “Aunty Pru” and “Pprune”. There is strong industry pressure for me to pursue legal action and has been for a protracted period.
Respectfully
Glen Buckley