Isn't the point here that 'duty of care' IS open to interpretation.
This despite the fact that; 'The legal eagles of the CAA have examined this subject and thus come up with the whole chapter on duty of care' .
Therefore controllers will interpret it differently depending on their experience, mindset, circumstances of the incident etc. It follows that the apparently strict set of rules for each new service will become a little blurred.
All that was needed was a sentence stating something along the lines of 'If their is an incident involving an aircraft receiving a service then the controller will be immune from prosecution if the strict rules of each service have been adhered too'
Why isn't it in the new entries in mats etc? Simple, the issue is clouded by duty of care and even the legal bods couldn't strictly define it.