Creamie: Your comments are accepted - I agree.
It is not for me to comment on whether the gentleman in question is innocent or guilty; I accept the AAT only "stayed" the proceedings until appropriate arbitration occurs; I inferred my opinion that a Court of law (rather than CASA OLC) was the most appropriate place to determine guilt (or otherwise) and suggested the evidence provided by CASA to the AAT lacked some credibility. Surely you must agree, comments in PPRuNe and anonymous reporting can hardly constitute substantive evidence!
“..it will be interesting to hear how the final hearing goes..” I understood exactly what you meant. And I agree it will be interesting to ultimately compare the findings of an appropriate Court of law, vis-a-vis the decision in the AAT to stay the decision, and the original administrative decision by CASA to cancel the licenses.
If CASA got it wrong (or indeed, failed to do their homework), I assume the gentleman will have an appropriate course available for restitution.
And if CASA got it right, a Court of law will ensure justice is not only done, but seen by the wider community to be done, in an open and accountable manner, by a competent, impartial and independent arbiter. As it should be……….
For once I suspect we totally agree.
