If this was all sparked by a disagreement over weather avoidance, then the Captain should have done as the F/O suggested. Why as a Captain would you generate a conflict over an issue such as this; it is not as though the F/O was insisting that they fly through the weather!
Indeed, it is odd that the Captain elected not to take the safer option. Was this all part of an attempt to stamp his authority on the F/O? The article reports the Captain as saying “Now I can see why you have had issues with other captains”; did the reputation of the F/O result in the Captain behaving in an atypical manner?
I have little sympathy for either party involved, as each contributed to a situation that presented a risk to their passengers and crew. The tribunal cannot give them their jobs back, but can only award compensation, and I think it highly unlikely that either will work in commercial passenger transport operations again.
I have flown with many pilots over the years, some I liked and some I didn’t (I daresay they had similar views about me). One thing is certain though, if any of them held the view that they would never fly with me again then that is a failure on my part not theirs.
As previous posters have commented on the CVR, it is also worth mentioning that many CVR systems are ‘looped’ tape systems (A319 only maintains last 2 hours of conversation); if the ‘main event’ happened on the way to AGP then it would have not been available for analysis on arrival back at EXT.