Very disturbing tale in_deed “K”!
Perhaps explains why when such matters go externally (i.e. the courts/tribunals) that the FF preferred less informal method, that is less inclined to examine ‘due process’, is the AAT.
Creamy:
The investigations manual of any regulatory authority does not have to be, and should not be, a public document.
Oleo:
I agree about the investigations manual, technically it shouldn't be made public, however it never takes long before copies are out there in the public domain for us to have a good laugh over.
Note: All it takes Oleo is one strongly well-worded, well-constructed FOI request for said document to be revealed!
I agree that it is probably not in the government enforcement agency’s best interest to reveal how they go about investigating the ‘ills of society’. However this day and age the GEA (in this case FF) are supposed to be beholden to the
‘Australian Government Investigation Standards’.
Note: The FF EM even states this at 11.5.1… “
The tasked investigator will conduct an investigation to provide the Manager EPP with a report and recommendations in accordance with the procedures set out in the Investigators Manual which incorporates the Australian Government Investigations Standards.”
And Oleo you will notice the IM reference which kind of answers your statement… “I don't know whether CAsA has said manual (if they do it will be an unfinished product around 15 to 20 years in the making).”
Much like the EM guides delegates and LSD in ‘due process’ for a ‘show cause’ administrative enforcement action, the AGIS calls for full transparency in the carriage of an investigation i.e. everything should be fully documented in order to show that ‘due process’ has indeed been adhered to.
Sure there will be sections of the IM that could be ruled are not in the ‘public interest’ to reveal. Just like the legal ‘due process’ for a show cause is strongly emphasised in the EM, so to would the IM emphasise the necessary protocols/procedures to be followed so that a case can ultimately withstand the scrutiny of a court of law.
Like executing a ‘search warrant’ or taking a 'statement' must follow a proper legal process (or you could find a prosecution being chucked out before it even gets to trial), so to does a FF investigation or enforcement action have to adhere to the proper documented legal process.
It is therefore reasonable that the respondent/defendant be allowed to view, at least, the documented protocols that the FF investigators must adhere to pursuant to the AGIS (2011).
Hmmm…food for thought on a Sundy arvo?? 