I was heavily involved in the aftermath of that accident, and in my opinion there was nothing "suspected" or "possible" about the stall and spin in that accident.
The aircraft was flying low and slow, with the doors off, which worsened the stall characteristics. The stall warner was also of a poor and disfunctional design which in my opinion should never have been approved on the aircraft.
Subsequently we removed the permission to fly with the doors off, and mandated a completely different stall warner which gave good, and very loud, stall warning.
There is still a risk that the aircraft will try to spin off a stall, particularly if you trickle in very slowly - say half a knot per second. However, if you smartly centralise the controls and reduce power, when we flight tested it, the aircraft returned to level flight after no more than a quarter turn and with no more than around 100ft ofheight loss. So, nothing (now) that should trouble a halfway experienced pilot who has taken the trouble to get to know the aeroplane.
Apart from that, the Mistral is fairly slippery on approach and descent, so speed control needs a little more care than some aeroplanes. That and it's an oldish engine the Rotax 532, which needs treating reasonably gently (and a pilot whose PFLs are current!).
Apart from that, if you look at the recency requirements for a JAR- PPL(A) or CPL(A) in LASORS (Section F page 10 in my 2008 copy) it says that your 12 hours in the second of 2 years must be in "SEP or TMG" - CAA doesn't recognise microlights as SEP for this purpose. This is an absurd interpretation, but it's how it is.
G