Good post sarcs.
The AAT finding makes interesting reading, where at para 37 of the report, the AAT ["which stands in the shoes of the Regulator"] goes on to investigate and ultimately prosecute JQ on the basis of exactly the same charges as sarcs lists at para. 13 of the AAT report.
Surely this brings the effect of casr 269(1)a into play, which simply is:
(a) that the holder of the
authorisation has contravened, a provision of the Act or these regulations, including these regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a State;
and:
(1A) CASA must not cancel an
authorisation under subregulation (1) because of a contravention mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) unless:
(a) the holder of the
authorisation has been convicted by a court of an offence against a provision of the Act or these Regulations (including these Regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a State) in respect of the contravention; or
(b) the person was charged before a court with an offence against a provision of the Act or these Regulations (including these Regulations as in force by virtue of a law of a State) in respect of the contravention and was found by the court to have committed the offence, but the court did not proceed to convict the person of the offence.
Answer creamie???