If, instead, CASA had been obliged to prove to a court that Bohn's CVD created an unacceptable risk to the safety of air navigation, before CASA imposed the career stopping condition, there would have been no condition imposed.
The matter would never have got to court.
Court, tribunal, or something - for every alleged misdemeanour, there would still have to be a process where the CASA officer would allege that some person wasn't working within the rules, and if the person wanted to dispute that they would need to have a ruling involving lawyers and umpires of some kind, wouldn't they?
I've already commented about arbitrary groundings and suspensions:
I take your point about the suspension / revocation / testing process - that seems to be a weapon readily available for misuse by the authority, given that it can put a person or operation out of business while the matter's being (or not being) resolved.
I can't see that it's an improvement in the system if you can only educate or warn, and then your next step is threatening (or actually proceeding to) court.
To mix things up further, Sunfish wanted rigid rules a few posts back and now he wants more flexibility -
My local police flashed his lights at me the other day, I was Ten kmh over. My police officer relative blips his siren when he sees a driver talking on their mobile. CASA should be doing more of the same.
This is a fine example of an officer using discretion - I like the idea, but you can't have it both ways.