If you are operating ATOs single pilot, no autopilot then you are of course breaking the law
Dude, put down the crack pipe. If you flew a light twin you will be painfully aware how pathetic the "certified" autopilot is, it's good in a relatively straight line and that's about it. Marginally better than a good trim. It doesn't automatically fly an approach or a hold or a missed approach so it is completely useless when you want to have a good look at the charts while you're in the thick of it.
It is in fact possible for multi crew operators to fly into the sides of hills as well. Have a think about Ansett at Palmie, the Dakota into the Kaimais or the DC10 at Erebus. Look at the causes of those individual accidents, and tell me how you would have CAA legislate against those.
And put down the bong as well. No one is saying for an instance that multicrew aircraft don't crash but the level of accidents for SPIFR or even SP multi is unacceptable. You had to go back 40 odd years to bring up the DC3 for pete's sake, for SPIFR or VFR you only have to look at ZK-NCA at CHC airport, or ZK-TZC, or ZK-JAN in the past 3 years. Have a look at the TAIC website for recent accidents, it is plain spooky.
Your single minded focus on the alleged shortcomings of SPIFR and the need to 'regulate' it out of existence, before any cause whatsoever of this crash has been found, is disturbing and it's something I would expect from a sensation seeking journalist rather than a professional aviator, who knows that air crashes whether they're single or multi crew, are nearly always complex things with many contributing factors that all came together at the wrong moment.
SPIFR accidents occur too often, it is that simple. Get rid of it in it's present form and you get rid of a lot of accidents, it ain't rocket science. As I said before, if Joe Public wants to charter an aircraft and knock about the traps, he get's a crew operating an aircraft with a fully functioning autopilot, GPS, EGPWS and a level of safety every bit as good as a scheduled service ATO. Or he rides the bus. He deserves a level of safety as good as any scheduled operator (as does the crew operating the charter aircraft) and he should be paying for it whether he likes to or not.
My objection is not about debating the rights and wrongs of SPIFR
The only "right" about SPIFR in it's present form is that it's cheaper until there's an accident.