Night Watchman
If, for example, the aircraft carrying the paramedic back to Goodwood was involved in an accident then would that not leave the operating company and pilot wide open to prosecution and possible legal action from the parmedic's family for operating outside its AOC? Perhaps Flying Lawyer could help on that one.
Operating company: No
Pilot: Possibly, but that’s a risk he was prepared to take in order to help. I’d like to think the CAA wouldn’t prosecute – but I’ve long given up trying to understand the thinking behind prosecution decisions by the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement (ARE) and Legal departments.
‘Possible legal action from the paramedic's family for operating outside its AOC?’
No, not unless this theoretical accident was caused by the pilot’s negligence, in which case there’d be a cause of action regardless of the nature of the flight.
The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.
The CAA can’t and doesn’t investigate every report it receives. In theory, the Head of ARE takes into account whether investigation is proportionate to the (alleged) incident.
Nothing to follow up in this instance IMHO - except perhaps a letter from the CAA commending the pilot for his assistance to another aviator in distress. (I entirely agree with your final comment.)
Daifly
If it were a public transport flight which wasn't being operated in accordance with the Ops Manual then it would have laid the company wide open if something had subsequently gone wrong (in this litigious world we live in).
See response to NW above.
And, nothing did go wrong so the issue is hypothetical or, as some might say, a fuss about nothing.
‘The "well it didn't" argument is never one that's worked too well with the CAA.’
You’re right - unfortunately.
The capacity of some CAA ARE and prosecution people for imagining the horrendous things that might in theory have happened (but didn’t, of course) can sometimes make the most skilled ‘shock horror’ journalists seem like amateurs.
Unless I was specifically asked to, I certainly wouldn’t say the FI’s judgment was “clouded”. From what I've read, he seems to have acted perfectly reasonably throughout.
”the moment he diverted from the Flight Training sortie ………. then it became, I guess, a flight that he was being paid to operate”.
He wasn’t being paid to operate it. That’s not the angle the CAA would take if they wished to be difficult.
As for your post #82 ………. Blimey!
itsveryeasy
”….. Dom has never asked anyone to put these posts in, nor to reply to them ……….. The fact that his friends have speaks volumes about them”
If by that you mean they are concerned/angry that their friend might be treated badly after behaving commendably, then I agree with you. Let’s hope it can all be forgotten as a ‘misunderstanding.’
thecontroller
A significant number of professional pilots in the UK would be even more ‘penniless’ if it wasn’t for wealthy people who can afford to learn to fly and/or be flown around in expensive toys. 
A complete fuss about nothing IMHO.
Whatever was or wasn't said by the CP and/or the CAA Flight Ops Inspector, let's hope common sense ulrimately prevails.
FL