"McComic – "Also, the contravention of any New Zealand civil aviation rule is a criminal offence for which a person may be prosecuted".
The point, dearest John, is that NZ will ruthlessly prosecute, under the LAW. Bull****, hearsay and technical breaches of administrative policy will not and cannot be made to work under NZ aviation law; i.e. proof must be provided. It's called facts and is presented as EVIDENCE for impartial assessment. This is different stuff to innuendo, hearsay, hay stacked reports of minor transgressions made up by willing accomplices to make much out of sod all. The bull**** we have come to expect, Barrier for one example. The supposition and artful manipulation of "facts and circumstances" to suit; the Airtex /Pelair treatments for example, which adequately and eloquently define the two faces of diametrically opposed non sequiturs. Cowardly scampering to tribunal which only "stands in the shoes of the regulator" and has no use for balls, brains and gods forbid, testable 'evidence'.
By using the AAT as a foil; the 'company lawyers' have cleverly manipulated, through the rules (always legal) a situation where the myth of CASA righteousness is used to hoodoo some 'arbiters' into believing that the CASA official, legal case is impeccably researched, totally impartial and; (saddest of all), righteous. Why are CASA so a-feared of prosecuting? Is it that the presenting of facts and circumstances, to a court of law and having to prove a case is just too hard? Or is just the potential humiliation of having your collective arses trounced on a trumped up brief too scary for the amassed ego's. Perjury and accountability do not make for easy minds, one element has to go.
Of course, there always is always the ICC; if we can ever find one who is not someone's "drinking mate", current squeeze or, a newly borne from the home stable. ICC? - it's been an industry standing joke ever since we lost Hart. What price to see/hear or read the Hansard testimony of that man eh?.
No, in NZ (and most civilised cultures) there would be both a desire and a need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, the case for the prosecution, not to simply bamboozle or frighten administrative fossils and Muppets masquerading as 'arbitrator' to the 'authority'. You see in NZ system, the rules may easily be followed and are clearly defined, which takes away many of CASA's weapons. No rule broken= no case to answer.
If the CDPP cannot make a case for prosecution, then scampering off to the AAT should not be the primary or a secondary option except, perhaps for administrative misdemeanour. Who needs double jeopardy fenced by non accountability, guarded by 'the mystique'. Imagine the chaos if the coppers tried that on;– no case to answer, dismissed: OK, no problem, we'll get you at the AAT next week. Look closely at the Quadrio case (and that ain't over yet; not by a long shot).
But you could do us all a final favour; take some of your bloody 'mates' with you. There is nowhere for them to hide, not in the real world anyway. Because, it's as sure as eggs, soon as you leave the buildings' protection, someone will peach or squeal (hell they're queuing up even now); self protection, advancement and disloyalty is a prerequisite; but you know that. What then?, without the trappings of power and your small band of willing accomplices to protect and dissemble.
And you dare to call Butson disillusioned; what a hoot.
Toot toot.