In any case, Caz is not a legal expert, as is evidenced by his mantra.
The defence in an appeal merely has the prove that there was a procedural error in the original prosecution to have either the 'guilty' verdict quashed, or a retrial ordered.
The fact that the ROs ignored the requirements of the AP as approved by the Air Board is sufficient.
The defence in this case can also point to the deliberate withholding of vital evidence known to the prosecution.
In a court of law this would have been overturned many years ago.