WildFrequency
It's important to remember this is not an innocent verdict. What this means is that a politician thinks it'd be a bad idea to go ahead with the case. There are many reasons the politician might think this... one that springs to mind is perhaps someone's got some dirt on him. This has been mentioned before on this thread.
The politician said: "not necesserily in the public interest". Another way of saying the same thing is "not necesserily not in the public interest." The two statements are equivalent since 'not necesserily' is an exercise in vagueness.
As for the ANRs - nothing doing there. Either they (CAA) proceed against him or not as they prefer. But the CARs are a different matter. There is one person who can't break the CARs and get away with it - Ol' Trev.
It seems that if CAA don't charge him with breaking the CARs then they commit an offence. The person charged in this case is Ol' Trev. If they do charge him then... well you get the picture.