For prosecution read persecution
Frank and CP agree with both of you. In the case of no prosecution CAsA knew it had no chance. By not rescuing the recordings both ATSB allegedly for financial reasons and CAsA for yet another form of withholding evidence, this time it wasn't misplaced but inaccessible. So the typical persecution, but only of the PIC?
What evidence did the co-pilot provide, we don't need to know her name but surely she could back up what really happened, is this another case of withholding relevant evidence or was it all discussed in camera??
Was this also a case of cronyism or selective investigation?
Ignoring the pre accident audit, the PIC appears to have followed an inadequate company procedure to the letter. Had he used some initiative he may have uplifted more fuel but with different performance consequences which had he got away with it may have been picked up by a professional audit. So he did wrong by following theoretical flt planning procedures or alternatively not following company (approved) policy.
Conclusion the aircraft was unsuitable in the first place for such transoceanic flights.
Assume the Skull has compensated DJ out of his own pocket?
S.H