Creamie,
I am involved in litigation, mainly environmental and planning litigation for local councils. As a result I prosecute criminal offences, and as part of that role do have discussions with defendants and their solicitors (who are usually trying to "do a deal").
I agree I have only heard one side of the story - happy to hear both sides. I am aware there are usually at least two perspectives.
If Torres approached me to, for example sue CASA for damages or something like that, I would naturally test all aspects of his story to see, pardon the pun, if it would fly in Court. To do otherwise would be negligent of me in those circumstances. At the moment I have only Torres side of things.
I suppose there are two possible explanations as to why Phelan and Torres get no where with their horror stories - the explanation you provide and the conspiracy-type theory that the Minister/CASA are covering their tracks. I don't know which is the case, but the information you have put forward is a bit scant.
For example, somewhere on this topic you stated CASA had better things to do when it did not appear before the AAT. What were the directions/orders for that listed date? I would expect that in the absence of a direction excusing CASA from appearing on that occassion. If there was no such direction then having "better things to do" does not sound like a reasonable explanation for not appearing - hell, if i did that in any of the courts or tribunals I appear before I would expect a through roasting from the court/tribunal.
If CASA does pursue "soft options" then that is great. You are probably correct that those issues don't fall to the public domain anfd fairly stated the reason. I don't think I have ever said CASA is all bad - in fact, my limited personal experience is that it is pretty good. My reason for starting this thread was I read Paul Phelan's article, and had read some of his earlier articles, and I was concerned. At this point, seems there might be something in Paul's article and that is of concern to me. Talking of 1:25 loss ratios isn't really the point - just one unreasonable or unjst action is enough.