let me ask you whether when you provide legal advice to your clients who have allegedly done something wrong, you have an elephant-sized conflict of interest because you provide them with advice and they are your clients.
With the greatest respect clapton, the fact you asked that question and apparently do not distinguish between the circumstances of an independent legal adviser advising a client on the one hand, and an employed lawyer advising her employer on whether the employer's breaches should be referred to the DPP on the other, is breathtaking. I will simply leave your statement as is and let it speak for itself.
And the story appears to be changing. In your post of 10 June you quoted Senator O’Brien’s statement:
So on the matter of referral of the Uzu breach to the DPP based on Civil Aviation Regulation 228, at best there are only two views: that of Mr Sherman and that of Mr Boys.
You then immediately said:
There were 3 legal opinions. Sherman, Skehill and CASA's General Counsel.
In your post immediately above, you said:
The fact that CAR 228 was not considered by General Counsel or Phillips Fox is completely irrelevant.
I will review the rest in greater detail when I get a chance, but let me say again, clapton,
this is the problem.