Heliport,, you are right in pointing out that it was the CAA's (legal) interpretation and thus their view and open to challenge, however I also said that under the Rule 5 changes planned that this had been clarified as that reference has been removed from the revised Rule 5 (not yet in) and left to Article 84 of the ANO to provide the requirement. ANO Article 84 says (today) that the Rules of the Air can be departed from "for avoiding immediate danger". This is all mentioned in the text introducing the Rule 5 change.
TC when I said before about the Commander considering his actions before 'breaking ' the law, I also said it was similar to the position of an ambulance or fire engine driver going through red lights. Think about it and if you believe you should do it then so be it ...."at your risk". I didn't say 'do it' (and couldn't anyway) but I think that it is highly unlikely that anyone doing it in a sensible way after proper consideration would be at risk of prosecution later. Other correspondents seem to have indicated that this was their experience in reality.
In other words, "yes I broke the law guv but there were strong mitigating factors".
Heliport, the Regulators in UK do try hard to be pragmatic but I'm afraid that HEMS is public transport pure and simple BUT with alleviations for the emergency site where they may well be needed. The police authority (in the form of the Home Secretary) themselves REQUIRED that police should operate to FULL public transport standards unless operationally essential to have exemptions. It ain't just the regulator being a pain.
But why spoil a good rumour and bitch session with facts?
Hope this clarifies and helps.
