Yr Right,
I'm a bit surprised that after following your response to these posts with regards to your obvious knowledge and experience of all things LAME and related legal requirements that you have possibly overlooked (or chosen for whatever reason) not to share a couple of things.
Maybe this has been as a result of your experiences gained as an expert witness in courts over the years however but it's a bit difficult to tell as there is no further detail with regards to your experience in this regard as to what types of courts you've been involved with aside from being not only an expert witness but the griller of (I presume) other witnesses and your interpretation of the word "recommend" (which is fair enough as you have alluded that it was accepted by the court due to a previous determination).
Maybe to relate this to the thread topic in relation as to what would happen if a fatal accident should occur in the event of a mechanical failure of some sort which has occurred following compliance or non compliance with an AW requirement, MR or SB (or whatever) by a person so authorised to effect that compliance (or non- compliance) could I suggest the following hypothetical situations.....
1. In the first instance I would imagine that regardless of where in Australia an incident or accident has occurred that as because there has been loss of life the matter will go before a coroner whose responsibility it is to determine Identity (of deceased), Date (the death occurred), Place (the death occurred) and manner and cause of death. The first few are easy ones but manner and cause of death is where things get interesting as generally speaking rules of evidence do not apply in Coroners courts.
2. In the event that evidence was identified during any subsequent process that such failure occurred directly as a deliberate act (that is a person or persons knowingly installed a faulty part or knowingly did not maintain something to required, and I would suggest to accepted published industry standards) by a person or persons then that would probably amount to a criminal act whereby the evidence supportive of this act would have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the standard by which criminal courts operate and rely upon for determination. In such a case the matter would be referred by the coroner to the relevant DPP for a legal advising and identification of an appropriate course of action.
3. In the event that this doesn't happen and say, the relatives of the deceased, decide to pursue matters further then the option is open for address within the civil legal system. At civil standard the balance of probabilities is the test which means that this (the event that is before court) probably happened. On the other side though a civil court can determine that it probably did not happen and it was nobody's fault and that all appropriate and proper actions were taken by the person or persons responsible in an genuine attempt to comply etc.
4. If this involved a company of course then there is always the option of insolvency, the decisions of which can always be tested by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal if so desired. If the company or person or whatever acted as a result of a decision made by an Australian Government Minister and that decision is to be disputed the AAT is where you go to do that. As we all know, the AAT deals with matters that relate to Civil Aviation and of recent times has been quite thorough with its examinations in matters that have involved not only the company concerned but also of the regulator. Their results are recorded as being fair and impartial.
Now I don't know much about this stuff however from what I read I guess at the end of the day, as far as I can see, it comes down to a question of compliance or a decision of non-compliance which may or may not have an adverse outcome.
Even with your vast experience you should not discount the views offered by the likes of Brainy, Leady, Jabba, Creamie, Eddie, Perspective and others. They are all entitled to their interpretation and spin on things and I think the acknowledgement and courtesy that they know what they are talking about in their various fields would not go astray. Like you, they've all earnt it and their knowledge and input is just as valid as yours.
Remember, you're an expert witness. An expert witness respects the views of others and takes them into consideration before response.
Thanks for reading,
Stiky