CASA - Moral Exemplar Duty - The end of the Friday Afternoon Fax?

[Sunfish]

Tidbindilla referred us to a case in the Full Federal Court that has reinforced the requirement that all Government Agencies have an absolute duty to be model litigants.

This requirement has to extend to every CASA action.

The games played with Butson at Polar Air and Quadrio are now, by this ruling, off limits.

Unless I am mistaken, the judgement relates to a complex taxation appeal - where the AAT rejected the applicants submission basically because the 23,000 pages of evidence they submitted were not in the precise form the AAT specified because it was almost impossible to comply with their specifications..


Speaking generally and without reflecting on counsel who appeared before us, being a model litigant requires the Commonwealth and its agencies, as parties to litigation, to act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. This obligation may require more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations...........................................

. That statutory instrument reflects an expectation the courts in our system of justice have of the executive government and its emanations....................................

in the words of Griffith CJ in Moorhead, an “old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects”. Its powers are exercised for the public good. It has no legitimate private interest in the performance of its functions. And often it is larger and has access to greater resources than private litigants. Hence it must act as a moral exemplar............................................

. In our opinion, counsel representing the executive government must pay scrupulous attention to what the discharge of that obligation requires, especially where legal representatives who are independent of the agency are not involved in the litigation.








LVR (WA) Pty Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2012] FCAFC 90 (22 June 2012) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2012/90.html)

[Creampuff]

The Office of Legal Services Coordination investigates reports of non-compliance with the Legal Services Directions: Office of Legal Services Coordination (http://www.ag.gov.au/Organisationalstructure/Pages/OfficeofLegalServicesCoordination.aspx)

Please put in a report and let us know the response. :ok:

[Sarcs]

The former AG the Hon Robert McClelland MP was the main driver of the principles of the Model Litigant Rules and in particular its application to the AAT see here:Pages - 26 August 2009 - The Obligation to Assist: Model Litigants in Administrative Appeals Tribunal Seminar (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21248/20111214-1249/www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Speeches/Pages/2009/Thirdquarter/26August2009TheObligationtoAssistModelLitigantsinAdministrat iveAppealsTribunalSeminar.html)

Since McClelland's demise, because of his support for KRudd, the new AG is too busy politicising the highest law officer's department. Subsequently any matters dealing with the principles of the 'Rule of Law' or simple civil liberties has unfortunately fallen down the list of priorities!:ugh:

Within the body of the Legal Services Direction 2005 is a clause that does not allow the MLR to be submitted as a defence in a Court of Law, however there are several cases where a Justice has drawn attention to a Federal Agency's obligations under the MLR.

My opinion, amongst others (aroa), on the MLR are stated here:http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/402856-casa-chess-game-13.html..and here:http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/491081-casa-morally-criminal-2.html

[Fantome]

in the words of Griffith CJ in Moorhead, an “old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects”. Its powers are exercised for the public good. It has no legitimate private interest in the performance of its functions. And often it is larger and has access to greater resources than private litigants. Hence it must act as a moral exemplar............................................


Is this an appeal to the nation's arbitrators to become like Solomon, after all their years in the bear-pits of litigation and everything counter to notions of fair play? These are schools for scandal, not schools for the judiciary, where in an ideal world all the benches would be occupied by men and women for whom fair play is their first priority. (Look no further for an example of the worst than Nicholson CJ of the Family Law Court to see a man who if an honest view were put by his learned associates and others down the pecking order, there would end all thought of advancement or preferment.)

[aroa]

Creamie. I lodged a report. The answer showed ...either didnt understand the request.... or didnt want to deal.:mad:
Next hoop was a review of that.., which chat was about other things and DID NOT deal with the REAL issue at question. :mad:
Went FOI to find out why. Anything BUT the Q :mad:
My request to Roxon was...if the request for MLO is valid... and the agency does NOT oblige what next.???
Can the highest legal office in the land NOT get them to so oblige.? Obviously NOT !!:mad:
Pprune is an excellent comms medium:ok:...no surprise to get an email response from Ags office/ Roxon TODAY ( no coincidence there!!)telling me to jump thru some more hoops :{...namely...
1. The CASA ICC ( that blew my bullsh*tometer) You know,.. that place that tells me it wont touch anything older than 12 months...!! (that blew my bullsh*tometer, as well) :mad:
2. The Comm Ombudsman. Been there earlier re why AFP wouldnt deal with the perjuring buggers either.( Legal let-off... CASA would have loved that ! :D)
Helpful, and they also have an investigative branch.
Might as well "hava go". At least then I can sing "Ive been everywhere, Man" song
What's another year in the scheme of things ??? as the citizen is passed around as a game of "pass the parcel" in CB La-La Land.

How does that statement go again...??
"It behoves Governments to see that justice is done, and swiftly, because if it is not, anarchy will eventually prevail"
Damn. there goes my Bullsh*tometer AGAIN. ! :{

[Sarcs]

Might as well "hava go". At least then I can sing "Ive been everywhere, Man" song
What's another year in the scheme of things ??? as the citizen is passed around as a game of "pass the parcel" in CB La-La Land.


Oh well aroa at least you appear to still have a semblance of sanity...if it's "in for a penny, in for a pound" why not try this mob???
Pages - Heads of Commonwealth Operational Law Enforcement Agencies (HOCOLEA) (http://www.ag.gov.au/Fraudcontrol/Pages/HeadsofCommonwealthOperationalLawEnforcementAgencies(HOCOLEA ).aspx)

'HOCOLEA' at least the anacronym is more impressive and it may only be a pebble lobbed on the roof but you never know who might be lobbing a rock from the other side!:ok:

[Frank Arouet]

Justice delayed is justice denied.

:(

[Creampuff]

The former AG the Hon Robert McClelland MP was the main driver of the principles of the Model Litigant Rules…Unadulterated twaddle.

The Legal Services Directions have been around for decades and compliance with them has been monitored and enforced for decades.I lodged a report. The answer showed ...either didnt understand the request.... or didnt want to deal…. or didn’t have merit, perhaps?

Maybe we need a (plain English) law that says: Any allegation made against CASA is deemed to be true. Then we wouldn’t have to worry about all the facts and both sides of the story. :ok:

[aroa]

HOCOLEA...never heard of that one before. Read up on today.
HOCO got MOJO??
I have plenty of time ( to waste?) putting in submissions, so I guess I'll give it a go. Might make a small noise on the roof...hopefully? :ok:

[Sarcs]

Unadulterated twaddle.

The Legal Services Directions have been around for decades and compliance with them has been monitored and enforced for decades.
Obviously not a fan of the former First Law Officer...oh well!

Maybe if our resident, cynical, self appointed, interpreter of legalese and the 'rule of law' had of bothered to read the former AG's speech he may have seen how seriously unconsidered (notice I didn't use the words 'stupid or ignorant'!) the above comment was:

I’d also like to briefly touch on the obligations introduced last year to the Directions.
These oblige parties to consider means of alternative dispute resolution prior to initiating legal proceedings.


..and here's some more of his 'unadulterated twaddle'

The Legal Services Directions and the Model Litigant Obligation

Although I am sure you are all familiar with these terms – I think it’s important to reflect on what the Legal Services Directions require from Commonwealth agencies as parties to Tribunal proceedings.
And also the underlying values reflected in the model litigant obligation.
The Directions set out, in broad terms – the requirement that the Commonwealth and its agencies are to uphold the highest possible standards of fairness, honesty and integrity – going beyond the required ethical or professional standards of lawyers appearing before a court or tribunal.

Specifically, the model litigant obligation requires that the Commonwealth and its agencies:

act honestly and fairly;
deal with claims promptly;
pay legitimate claims without litigation;
act consistently in the handling of claims and litigation; and
consider alternative dispute resolution.
The obligation also requires generally keeping costs to a minimum and not taking advantage of claimants who lack resources to litigate a legitimate claim.
This however does not require the Commonwealth to take a soft approach to legal proceedings. The Commonwealth is able to act firmly and properly to protect its interests.
The obligation also doesn’t prevent the Commonwealth from legitimately seeking to recover its costs where appropriate.
Clearly, holding the Commonwealth and its agencies to a high standard is not a new concept.
Although the model litigant obligation was formally articulated in its current form in 2005 – reference is often made in courts and tribunals to the 1912 case of Melbourne Steamship v Moorhead, where Chief Justice Griffith made the following observation:
I am sometimes inclined to think that in some parts - not all – of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date. I should be glad to think that I am mistaken.[2] (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21248/20111214-1249/www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Speeches/Pages/2009/Thirdquarter/26August2009TheObligationtoAssistModelLitigantsinAdministrat iveAppealsTribunalSeminar.html#sup2)
Almost a century later, this statement is still relevant to Commonwealth’s obligation to act as a model litigant and participant in AAT proceedings.
The old-fashioned standard of fair play remains.


Even the present First (Law) Officer has introduced a recent amendment to the Legal Services Directions 2005, but I don't think her heart is quite in it or too preoccupied defending 'Slippery Pete'!

aroa said: I have plenty of time ( to waste?) putting in submissions, so I guess I'll give it a go. Might make a small noise on the roof...hopefully?

Yep no time like the present, just think some bureaucrat has to deal with it when it lobs into their 'in tray'...they might say.."not that mad bugger again"...but they still have to process and pass on to the next level of bureaucrats!:ok:

[Creampuff]

Just goes to show that even the First Law Officer can be badly briefed. The Legal Services Directions, including the model litigant rules, were around long before 2005.

And sarcs: Alternative Dispute Resolution has got nothing to do with ‘the Friday afternoon fax’ – a reference, I assume, to notices of suspension or cancellation decisions, made in the exercise of regulatory powers. :ok:

PS sarcs: you might find this one, among many, interesting: Edebone and Comcare [2000] AATA 937 (25 October 2000) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/AATA/2000/937.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=Edebone%20and%20Comcare)

You only need to read the first 2 paragraphs.

A Commonwealth agency getting a kicking.

From the AAT.

For failure to comply with model litigant obligations.

Under the Legal Services Directions.

The version issued in 1999.

(The version issued in 1999 wasn’t the first version.)

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

The Legal Services Directions, including the model litigant rules, were around long before 2005.

..And honored in the breach by CASA in the cases of Butson, Quadrio and others?

[Creampuff]

Do you think that Federal Court Judges and AAT members aren't aware of the Legal Services Directions and the Model Litigant rule?

[Kharon]

CP - Any allegation made against CASA is deemed to be true.
Fair comment in a 'normal' world; but does the industry have a normal relationship with the regulator as it stands today? Going back, not too many years, the general gripes in Australia were pretty much the same ones heard anywhere between Anchorage and Timbuktu; mostly about paperwork and petty gripes about being 'chipped' or hauled over the coals for an offence (probably committed). It's the same in every armed service, police force, airline or chip shop – same old, same old.

But, both the level and type of complaint about 'authority' over the last few years have changed, as has the perception of a honest (if hide bound) reliable, industry serving regulator. There is some real, deep seated hostility out there now, a marked lack of respect and a real sense of fear. All counter productive.

No amount of legal wrangling, spin doctoring, plain or fancy Pony pooh will fix up the mess. Bang away at the quotes boys, but nothing except an independent, deep investigation into the current aberration will restore a normal relationship between the industry and the authority which is paid handsomely to serve it.

Rant over.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

Do you think that Federal Court Judges and AAT members aren't aware of the Legal Services Directions and the Model Litigant rule?

Your foolish comment demonstrates either that you don't know how judges are required to apply the law and to try each case on its merits, or you are wilfully misleading readers of Pprune.

The reason the directions and rule is in place is precisely because judges have to rule on matters of fact and law, not whether the litigant has followed the spirit of the law.

To put that another way, a judge is not allowed to say "Yes CASA, you are correct I find that XXX is guilty of breaching the law, but I think you have been such an arsehole in prosecuting him that I'm going to find him not guilty."

To put that yet another way, judges are not allowed to give marks for neatness and technique, the law is the law.

In fact it is precisely why the directions and rule exist - to stop Government litigants from fcuking over the general population.

So don't try and push your perverted argument at me, do you think I was born yesterday? I was priviledged to work in the Victorian public service for a few years at a relatively senior level and I know perfectly well that it is easy to fcuk a member of the public over while remaining safely within the law. It's a public sector art form.

If I had known at the time that CASA has the capacity to behave as it has done in the Butson case, I would have never bothered learning to fly, but would have taken up golf instead.

CASA is slowly killing general aviation.

[Creampuff]

Sunfish

I’m confident that I have a far better understanding than you of what the Legal Services Directions are and do, and who monitors and enforces compliance with them.

The Judiciary Act 1903 is a law. Section 55ZF of the Judiciary Act 1903 is a law. Legal practitioners representing the Commonwealth and its agencies are obliged to comply with directions made under section 55ZF. Judges and AAT members monitor and enforce compliance with the law – that’s their day job.

Did you not bother to read just the first 2 paragraphs of the AAT decision at the link I provided?

When you suggest that Butson and Quadrio are examples of breaches of the Model Litigant rules, what you are in effect saying is that all the judges and tribunal members involved in those matters are unable to, and do not enforce, the Model Litigant rules. That suggestion is utter bunkum. You just need to read just the first 2 paragraphs of the AAT decision at the link I provided. And please go to the information about the Office of Legal Services Coordination at the link I provided.

Naturally you’ve sent your complaint about CASA’s alleged behaviour in Butson and Quadrio, to the OLSC? What response did you get?

[Kharon]

CP - When you suggest that Butson and Quadrio are examples of breaches of the Model Litigant rules, what you are in effect saying is that all the judges and tribunal members involved in those matters are unable to, and do not enforce, the Model Litigant rules. No; bad Creamy! Once again - Close, but no ceegar. Fact; the poor old court is stuck with what is provided; and, has to make do with that. "This M'lud is a dead cat"; no argument. We offer this proof (dead cat) and the affidavit that "this" (point accusatorily, look stern and learned) is the actual cat in question M'lud".

But is it ? – to quote the much missed Backhand – there's the rub. Just sayin' it's so don't make it so. Not by a bloody long shot (when the deck is honest, that is).

CP - Naturally you’ve sent your complaint about CASA’s alleged behaviour in Butson and Quadrio, to the OLSC?. Nope, just the police force for the state which administers the law under which testimony is sworn.

[Sunfish]

Creampuff:

When you suggest that Butson and Quadrio are examples of breaches of the Model Litigant rules, what you are in effect saying is that all the judges and tribunal members involved in those matters are unable to, and do not enforce, the Model Litigant rules. That suggestion is utter bunkum. You just need to read just the first 2 paragraphs of the AAT decision at the link I provided. And please go to the information about the Office of Legal Services Coordination at the link I provided.

Naturally you’ve sent your complaint about CASA’s alleged behaviour in Butson and Quadrio, to the OLSC? What response did you get?


Again you try your rotten sophistry. The model litigant rule is just that - a RULE for LITIGANTS it has nothing to do with LAW which is administered by Judges.

To put that another way, for judges to give a flying fcuk about this matter it would have to be encapsulated in a Model Litigant LAW, otherwise the subject is only of passing interest to a judge.

Judges do not enforce rules, they enforce the law. The model litigant rule has no force of law, unlike the rules of evidence for example.

To put that yet another way that you might possibly comprehend, a very large number of appeals against judicial rulings are caused by a judge expressing some form of partiality to one side or the other in a case which is why judges stick very, very close to the law and to nothing else.

To put that yet another way, appeals have been allowed because a judge, in instructing a jury, has used the word "could" instead of "might" as in "you could find the defendant guilty".

P.S. I'll take your suggestion of complaining to the OLSC as the sick joke it is. It would have no effect except to ensure that I was flagged for "the treatment" if I ever engaged with CASA over some matter involving me. I've seen that done in the public service a number of times.

[Creampuff]

The second respondent is, as we have noted, an officer of the Commonwealth. As such he properly is to be expected to adhere to those standards of fair dealing in the conduct of litigation that courts in this country have come to expect - and where there has been a lapse therefrom, to exact - from the Commonwealth and from its officers and agencies. The spirit of this "model litigant" responsibility, now long enshrined in a policy document of the Commonwealth, is perhaps best captured in the observations of Griffith CJ in Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead …
In our view the conclusion is inescapable that the second respondent has fallen considerably short of the standard properly to be expected of the Commonwealth. …

… . The consequence was, in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice.

… In these circumstances the appeals must be allowed and the orders of Heerey J of 15 October 1998 must be set aside.
Scott v Handley [1999] FCA 404 (13 April 1999) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/FCA/1999/404.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(scott%20v%20handley%20))

Clearly the Full Court of the Federal Court does not have the benefit of Sunfish’s and Kharon’s vast knowledge of the legal consequences of failing to discharge the model litigant responsibility. BTW, sarcs: that’s a 1999 case.

[Sarcs]

Creamy not arguing that the principles of the MLR and indeed the Legal Services Directions haven't been around for donkeys years, even the former First Law Officer refers to Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead:
Although the model litigant obligation was formally articulated in its current form in 2005 – reference is often made in courts and tribunals to the 1912 case of Melbourne Steamship v Moorhead, where Chief Justice Griffith made the following observation:
I am sometimes inclined to think that in some parts - not all – of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date. I should be glad to think that I am mistaken.[2] (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/21248/20111214-1249/www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Speeches/Pages/2009/Thirdquarter/26August2009TheObligationtoAssistModelLitigantsinAdministrat iveAppealsTribunalSeminar.html#sup2)

I am also aware that there is numerous cases of precedent set, where a Justice officer has referred a government agency to their obligations under the MLR.

However as Sunny pointed out, also written in the body of the Legal Services Directions, the MLR cannot be used as a defence (because they're rules not laws) in a Court of law. Which only leaves complaining to the OLSC about apparent breaches of the MLR, which you have already cynically pointed out (along with aroa's experience) is a total WOFTAM!

So that leaves poor Joe Citizen to continue to rock up to AAT hearings, continue to be severely pineappled by a 'bully boy' regulator with unlimited resources and hope that the DP will point out that the regulator isn't playing fair according to the MLR!

Creamy although you point out cases where this has happened the regulator's legal teams (Harvey and Co) know that the odds are severely stacked in their favour i.e. they've got this AAT system sussed!:ugh: What gets me is how they can say such reactive behaviour is all for the good of a 'proactive' aviation safety regulator, it's definitely not about 'safety' it's all about 'liability'!

[Creampuff]

The second respondent is … an officer of the Commonwealth

… this "model litigant" responsibility …

… the second respondent has fallen considerably short of the standard properly to be expected of the Commonwealth. …

… The consequence was, in our opinion, a miscarriage of justice.

… In these circumstances the appeals must be allowed …It's not rocket surgery. :rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

Creampuff: The legal case you refer to RELATES TO THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A JUDGE AT TRIAL, NOT A GOVERNMENT INSTRUMENTALITY BEFORE OR DURING A TRIAL.

And furthermore, you had to scratch around to find a Thirteen year old case as faulty evidence.

Lets face it, If I were in CASA legal services, I would calculate that there is little danger of anything to do with CASA's behaviour will ever make it to the High Court since the costs of getting that far are prohibitive, and, based on your own research, there is SFA chance that the Court would ever take the case let alone find against CASA.

Evidence in the form of multiple failed cases alleging CASA's failure to apply the model litigant rules is against you.

To put it another way, the only time appeals to "procedural fairness" and "natural justice" are invoked is when a member of CASA is in trouble, as in the case of the deliberately false statements by CASA officers regarding a certain pilot conducting unauthorised maintenance.

As I have said before, these games will continue until there are not One, but Three smoking holes in the ground with great loss of life, and in any case, the culprits will have long since retired with their full superannuation.

[Creampuff]

The case relates to the behaviour of a government officer – the Secretary of the Department of Social Security. That’s the ‘second respondent’ referred to in the passages I extracted. The Secretary of the Department of Social Security failed to discharge his model litigant responsibility. As a consequence of that failure, a court decided that a miscarriage of justice had occurred, and allowed the appeal.

It’s a real court deciding that a real government officer failed to discharge the model litigant principle, resulting in a real legal consequence.

It’s the same model litigant responsibility whether it’s about criminal proceedings or administrative proceedings.

I chose an older case in an attempt to show – on the basis of irrefutable objective evidence – that the model litigant responsibility has been around for a long time, has been considered by courts and tribunals for a long time, and has potential legal consequences if not discharged. The suggestion by sarcs was that a knight in shining armour, in the guise the erstwhile Commonwealth Attorney General, “was the main driver of the principles of the Model Litigant Rules and in particular its application to the AAT”.Evidence in the form of multiple failed cases alleging CASA's failure to apply the model litigant rules is against you.So your logic goes: because multiple allegations of breach of the model litigant rules by CASA have been rejected by the AAT and court, it proves the allegations to be true?

You’ve got some real issues there, Sunfish.

You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.

[gobbledock]

You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.
Oh my god, he's lost the plot!!!!

[Kharon]

GD -Oh my god, he's lost the plot!!!! I reckon he knows the plot - CP is not only entertaining and 'technically' correct but often educational. You may not like it, but much of the 'stuff' he puts up in response illustrates, very nicely, what anyone taking on the 'authority' is faced with. CP just points out the big guns which are naturally set to protect against marauding hordes of the unwashed attacking the system.

It makes sense; 'Court' or a Tribunal would, by default ensure 'their judgement' was sound, which means that it is safer to go with the official line "they are unsafe – the blood of the next accident is on your hands" argument, than risk an uninformed or marginal judgement which back fires at a later date. They should be able to support the 'authority' 99% of the time with full confidence and so should the industry – alas this is not been so, not for a long, long time.

It's convincing the 'establishment' that they have and are being led up the garden path by an incompetent, self serving, morally corrupt 'authority' where the problem lies. It's a big task for a half assed, fragmented industry which can't seem to decide what constitutes a proper radio call. But it must be sorted.

Tick tock - As I have said before, these games will continue until there are not One, but Three smoking holes in the ground with great loss of life, and in any case, the culprits will have long since retired with their full superannuation. CP - So your logic goes: because multiple allegations of breach of the model litigant rules by CASA have been rejected by the AAT and court, it proves the allegations to be true? Creamy in short; yes we know it's true, all of it; but saying and proving are very different animals.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Mark Twain.

[Creampuff]

So if multiple allegations are made that someone is a child molester, and the courts find the allegations not to be true, that proves the allegations to be true?

And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.

[Stan van de Wiel]

[QUOTE][Creampuff
*
So if multiple allegations are made that someone is a child molester, and the courts find the allegations not to be true, that proves the allegations to be true?

And we wonder why lynch mobs happen.
/QUOTE]
CP. almost correct. Under the common law system it is not a matter of truth but of who has the best representation. Refer $$$$$.

As to MLD correct they have been around since the beginning of the last century in the form of ethics and morals once upon a time associated with the profession of law. The reference to McClelland and his interest in MLD came about because the Rule of Law Institute objected to a published claim that there was only one reported case. In 2011 ROLIA were in possession of some 6 cases involving CA(s)A alone for that year. The one reported case didn't even involve CA-A !!

The most common tactic is forgetting to disclose information relevant to the making of a decision. Maybe a bit like flying into extreme weather without a forecast? This forgetting is however is a deliberate decision at the LSD level.

Hence your financially secure child molester has a relatively good chance of getting off, whether guilty or not. The financially compromised alleged molester on the other hand has no hope. Suggest you download a free copy of "serial liars" by Evan Whitton and find out how it's done "legally". Where do we sign up for the lynch mob?

[Creampuff]

A newspaper article dated 12 August 2011:THE federal government has been accused of covering up breaches of its model litigant rules that have resulted in a series of government agencies being heavily criticised in court.

Judgments collated by the Rule of Law Institute show courts have strongly criticised federal agencies over a series of incidents revealing apparent breaches of the model litigant rules. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]

The institute said breaches of the model litigant rules would once have been disclosed by the government, but no longer appear in the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department. [Perhaps Bob McClelland wasn’t quite the knight in shining armour some thought he was?]

After being informed of apparent breaches, Attorney-General Robert McClelland said he took breaches of the government's legal services directions -- which contain the model litigant rules -- very seriously.
"I have requested urgent briefings from my department as to the cases raised by the Rule of Law Institute and to the reporting of these breaches," Mr McClelland said.

In one incident, a man was jailed after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police failed to produce documents that later led to his exoneration.

In another case, the Workplace Ombudsman was accused in court of being a "partisan" litigant instead of a model litigant.

Other federal agencies that have been criticised over their conduct in court are:
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
The Commissioner of Taxation.
The Australian Securities and Investments Commission. [CASA must be particularly clever in fooling the courts - it didn’t rate a mention. ]

The Rule of Law Institute chief executive, Richard Gilbert, said problems uncovered by the institute justified a review by the Australian Law Reform Commission or the Administrative Review Council.

The model litigant rules require all federal agencies to conduct their legal affairs with efficiency and fairness.

But, last year, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was criticised by the NSW Court of Appeal for failing to call a witness who could have assisted the court arrive at the truth.

The judgment in Morley v ASIC says: "In partial answer to the first of the questions, whether its failure to call a witness can constitute a breach of the obligation of fairness, in our opinion it can." [Whoops: there’s another court saying a breach can have legal consequences.]

Figures compiled by the institute from early annual reports of the Attorney-General's Department show disclosure of breaches came to an end after a 289 per cent blowout in the number of confirmed breaches in 2008-09. [How did those naughty, rich agencies manage not to fool the courts?]

"The government should disclose the breaches of the rules because this was always intended," Mr Gilbert said.

In DCT v Denlay, the Queensland Court of Appeal said last year it was preposterous for the Commissioner of Taxation to contend that the loss of the respondent's entire estate could not be called an extreme hardship.

In the 2009 criminal case R v Martens, the Queensland Court of Appeal criticised the Commonwealth DPP and the AFP for failing to provide documents that could help the defence in a criminal case.

In ACCC v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group, the Federal Court ordered the ACCC to pay 80 per cent of the ANZ's costs after considering the failure of the ACCC to adhere to the model litigant obligations by not issuing a notice to answer interrogatories within the time ordered. [More legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]

In Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clear Blue Developments, the Federal Court declined to order costs to the Deputy Commissioner because this would "reward work which is not of a standard to be expected of a person to be solicitor on the record for a person to whom the model litigant obligations adhere". [Even more legal consequences flowing from a failure to comply with the LSDs.]

In 2011 ROLIA were in possession of some 6 cases involving CA(s)A alone for that year.I wonder why those cases didn’t rate a mention in the article. Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal?

I’ve now posted references to numerous cases in which the AAT or courts have found a government agency to have failed to discharge the model litigant responsibility, despite the government having lots of money.

Please cite the decisions in which those findings have been made against CASA. :ok:

[Sarcs]

Oh yes the ROLIA, apparently a well respected institute in Legalweagleland! Not much help to Joe Citizen though, all they do is say .."yep your right that is a breach of the MLR"... and refer you to the OLSC...and so starts the merry go round!

The Bard: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing. ...bout sums it up!

Where do we sign up for the lynch mob? Don't know about the lynch mob but I'd definitely be in on a good old fashioned 'stoning!':ok:

Ok Creamy I'll bite....so what is your point?

CP: Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal?


To start with it was my knuckledragging, legally illiterate understanding, faithfully referenced by ROLIA, that because of section 55ZG of the Judiciary Act 1903 paragraph (3)...
(3) The issue of non-compliance with a Legal Services Direction may not be raised in any proceeding (whether in a court (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s46.html#court), tribunal or other body) except by, or on behalf of, the Commonwealth (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ja1903112/s67a.html#commonwealth).
...a suspected (or confirmed by the ROLIA) breach of the MLR cannot be introduced as a defence or a point of law in a court etc.

So in the AAT unless the legal eagle for CASA wants to put his/her hand up and say...."ah Deputy President I believe we have used underhanded tactics that have contravened the MLR"...or the Deputy President smells a rat and castigates the legal team from CASA for being a bunch of bully boys, the MLR will not be reviewed or referred to in any way!

Why there are no documented cases of the CASA being told to drop their dacks and get six of the best from the MLR ruler who knows? Maybe it's because the contracted QC and his legal team are awake to the foibles of the AAT and they're bloody good at what they do!

[Stan van de Wiel]

[QUOTE][I wonder why those cases didn’t rate a mention in the article. Perhaps they were cases in which the allegation was made but rejected by the court or tribunal? /QUOTE]
At the time of the news article ROLIA were not aware of them as they had not been reported by the AG. The court did not make any mention as is required but then again the withholding of relevant material cannot be identified until released under FOI. Especially when this material is not in the interest of CASA

In several of the cases the CDPP had recommended no action be taken as no case existed. A Model Litigant would think twice going against such advice, but then keeping that advice out of the action by claiming Privilege all is OK. What the victim doesn't know ......etc. what the AAT doesn't know won't go against CASA. All these cases have been reported to the AG with evidence but that is another story.

[Kharon]

Worst news article this year (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/news/2012/08/casa-cites-polar-judgement-in-repacholi-case/)

In effect, CASA’s lawyer is claiming that its officers can do what they like to whomever they like, using the cloak of respectability of “safety” under s9A (1) of the Civil Aviation Act, with impunity and at the discretion and subjective opinions of the officials concerned, with a total disregard to any person’s personal or business rights, no matter how trivial (or negligently false) the alleged “safety” issue might be, and no matter how devastating the effect any such heavy handed action might have on an individual or business.

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. Charles Dickens.

This time - words really do fail.

[Creampuff]

Why there are no documented cases of the CASA being told to drop their dacks and get six of the best from the MLR ruler who knows? Maybe it's because the contracted QC and his legal team are awake to the foibles of the AAT and they're bloody good at what they do!Or, maybe it’s because “the contracted QC and his legal team” are aware of and take seriously their model litigant obligations?

By the way, in which matter has CASA briefed a QC? Every AAT and Court decision states the name and honorifics of counsel for both parties. Please cite one matter – just one – in which CASA has briefed a QC.… or the Deputy President smells a rat and castigates the legal team …I’ve cited, earlier in this thread, an AAT matter in which the first statement made by the Deputy President was a castigation of the respondent for failure to discharge the model litigant obligation.

Are you saying that CASA only appears before Deputy Presidents (all of whom are Federal Court judges, by the way) who are too stupid to spot failures to comply with the model litigant obligation? :rolleyes:

[Kharon]

A truce Brother Cream Puff – 'tis a sad day. This ruling in WA proves that no matter what, this CASA outfit cannot and will not embarrass the Minister and can basically, without fear do what the hell they like, to anyone, anytime, any place without accountability. Bit like Hempel really, sod the rules, bugger the consequences to everyone else, "I am invincible and will do what I like".

I concede, that as a cats paw of government, they remain the last man standing. They stand, bereft of all courage, honour, integrity or the slightest credibility; but, they have won this battle. Today. .. So a day of mourning for things lost. Perhaps the industry will take a quiet moment to ponder the consequences of apathy; again, it's just like Hempel and the "Bud" everyone knew, yet for various reasons, did nothing.

Before me there were no created things Only eterne, and I eternal last. All hope abandon, ye who enter in!" Selah.

[Sunfish]

You keep dodging the issue Creampuff.

You say that the courts are well aware of the Model litigant rules - true.

You then make a number of unfounded leaps to conclusions, to whit:

1. Just because the courts are aware of the MLR, then by definition, CASA must be following them or the courts would have penalised them for it (untrue)

2. Just because CASA has not been found to have transgressed the MLR's despite multiple allegations from different parties that they have, then they couldn't have transgressed (untrue).

...And now CASA's own lawyers advance the proposition that CASA has no duty whatsoever to adhere to the MLRs anyway!

Creamy don't you understand that CASA is advancing rapidly towards the Alice in Wonderland verdict:

CASA can do anything whenever and wherever to whoever in the interests of SAFETY. However SAFETY IS WHAT CASA SAYS IT IS.


To put that another way, CASA is using a self referential loop to justify itsef. Furthermore, just like in Alice in Wonderland, the penalty often comes before the verdict, in the form of shutting down operations so that the subject bleeds to death financially before they can defend themselves.

Please note that, yes, of course there are miscreants, but it appears, at least from pprune, that CASA is none too selective in its choice of victims.


The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice.

'There's more evidence to come yet, please your Majesty,' said the White Rabbit, jumping up in a great hurry; 'this paper has just been picked up.'

'What's in it?' said the Queen.

'I haven't opened it yet, said the White Rabbit, 'but it seems to be a letter, written by the prisoner to—to somebody.'

'It must have been that,' said the King, 'unless it was written to nobody, which isn't usual, you know.'

'Who is it directed to?' said one of the jurymen.

'It isn't directed at all,' said the White Rabbit; 'in fact, there's nothing written on the outside.' He unfolded the paper as he spoke, and added 'It isn't a letter, after all: it's a set of verses.'

'Are they in the prisoner's handwriting?' asked another of they jurymen.

'No, they're not,' said the White Rabbit, 'and that's the queerest thing about it.' (The jury all looked puzzled.)

'He must have imitated somebody else's hand,' said the King. (The jury all brightened up again.)

'Please your Majesty,' said the Knave, 'I didn't write it, and they can't prove I did: there's no name signed at the end.'

'If you didn't sign it,' said the King, 'that only makes the matter worse. You MUST have meant some mischief, or else you'd have signed your name like an honest man.'

There was a general clapping of hands at this: it was the first really clever thing the King had said that day.

'That PROVES his guilt,' said the Queen.

[Stan van de Wiel]

The MLD apply in all LITIGATION not just in a court room. Perhaps CP could tell us how the following fits in with the MLD? Or did he create it!


Civil Aviation Safety Authority - in Confidence
OLC believes that this is a borderline case and were it to appear before the AAT, that the results of a review could not be guaranteed. However, both OLC and the Area Office argue that it is important POLICY position to take action against Schutt, in order to DISUADE other companies from attempting to CIRCUMVENT. Legislation in this way.
Corporate Affairs 16 April 2002 [ sic ]

Wonder why the Model Litigant didn't provide this document before the AAT?

Why would it take 3 years to release same under FOI? Consider that this is one of the lesser transgressions, more to follow. Our Model of a Model Litigant (Anastasi) initially denied ALL documents, with some unusual assistance from the AAT he managed to provide 2200 out of a total of some 13000.


Sure look forward to Creampuff's clarification. Incidentally the CDPP strongly advised CASA against any action "there is no case"[sic]. Also obtained under assistance from the AAT.

[Kharon]

I borrowed this gem from the Jetstar thread. It's a classic and with small modifications could very well be applicable. Anyway – it's worth a read if only for the smiles.
Tony the Tiler - Elephant Hiding

I’m not sure what the science of Elephant hiding is called but it appears that there are a few good practitioners of said science in Australia. For the spectators out there a certain member of the JPC put the spotlight on the MOU elephant when he signalled MOU termination. Since that time it would appear that AIPA have been desperately trying to hide said elephant anywhere they can. Now, even for those in the cheap seats, it is plainly obvious that you cannot hide an elephant behind a lamppost, coffee table, coat hanger or light globe, but it is entertaining nonetheless, and it is not for lack of trying. The entertainment value has only increased with the desperation and now in a new turn the AFAP have been dragged into the circus act as an unwilling participant.

Smoke and mirrors is the new act, normally reserved for the corporate management thug types, but now adapted for the Elephant hiding act. Now, as everyone knows, elephants are very hard to hide. But, in a light bulb moment, the elephant hiding ringmasters have decided that the next best thing to hiding an elephant is making it disappear. Wow, the crowd is silent in anticipation, a disappearing elephant act, can it really get any better. Sadly, the act is only part way through and my source is unable to report on the outcome of this new and daring act. But so far there is a lot of smoke and distraction and something called unity. Unity is mentioned by the ringmasters at every opportunity, what can it mean and where will it end?

Oh the possibilities are endless, maybe the elephant dies of smoke inhalation, African ivory poachers swoop in and steal the elephant, or the elephant vanishes in a puff of smoke. The anticipation is building, will the MOU elephant disappear, or will it be standing front and centre when the smoke clears? :D
An excellent and most satisfactory follow on to Sunny's top quote.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Creampuff]

Just because CASA has not been found to have transgressed the MLR's despite multiple allegations from different parties that they have, then they couldn't have transgressed (untrue).So CASA has been involved in literally dozens of court and tribunal matters over the last couple of decades (the decisions are all publicly available), and in some of those cases CASA has been found to have misinterpreted the law or made the wrong decision on the merits, but in none them has the court or tribunal been smart enough to spot the fact that CASA has failed to discharge the model litigant responsibility?

One wonders how the courts and tribunals managed to find other agencies and their advisers to have failed to discharge the model litigant policy, during the same period.

Those CASA lawyers must be extraordinarily clever!And now CASA's own lawyers advance the proposition that CASA has no duty whatsoever to adhere to the MLRs anyway!If it is true that one of CASA’s own lawyers advanced that proposition, it merely demonstrates that at least that lawyer is mistaken. Or perhaps the lawyer has been misquoted or verballed?

Stan: Are you suggesting that the quotation in your post is from a CASA document and wasn’t disclosed in proceedings in which it should have been disclosed? If it is from a CASA document and should have been but wasn’t disclosed in proceedings, I urge you to make a complaint to the Office of Legal Services Coordination.

Please let us know how that goes. :ok:

[Stan van de Wiel]

CP. Stan: Are you suggesting that the quotation in your post is from a CASA document and wasn’t disclosed in proceedings in which it should have been disclosed?

If you are really that naive as an ex CASA employee, respected by some, it explains a lot about the remnants. Do you really think I'm submitting a false document and that under my own name. Actually this is the least offensive one of several. The Skull didn't feel this was sufficient NEW info to reopen my case.

Returning to your naivity, the OLSC have naturally been written to as have the AG (possibly intercepted by your inside ex colleague Illyk) as I haven't heard a peep. Then off course Albo who has referred it to his CASA. Makes one dizzy to contemplate this circular process (not progress) then there is the Ombo (too hard) and the poor ICC Mike Hart, indeed Bruce Byron was the only one who entertained looking into it but then look what happened to him. I almost feel responsible. Don't get me started on the Skull or his side kick ICC Elizabeth Hampton. Her threatening response was the super Model Litigant, probably also a lawyer straight out of ethics school. where do they find these "creatures", my apologies to the animal variety.

quote Those CASA lawyers must be extraordinarily clever quote.

Clever is not the word, it is "devious". How do you expect a judge or member to recognise missing detail or info. The victim of CASA can only guess at its existance or wait 3 to 4 years for its release after S.M. Forgie has educated CASA lawyer Anastasi how to retrieve information using the "search" function. It was quite enlighting for him a lesson in Word 101. When he couldn't retrieve a single item, surprisingly many related to his actions. Probably that's why he had the last call on their release.

You should read Geoff McClaw's report or give him a call, he no longer serves the cause. Oh yes it was missing as well, how extraordinary.

In 2007 Vaile ordered CASA to resolve the matters. They possibly mistook resolve for dissolve. But that was only 5 years ago!

Enough for now, let me know when you're ready for the next lesson in how CASA functions. SW. "empty skies are safe skies"

[Creampuff]

OMG: I realise that all allegations against CASA are true! :eek:

Problem solved! :ok:

[Stan van de Wiel]

Thats the ATTITUDE just what I would expect from an open minded team player!

Don't let facts or evidence influence your opinion will you. Did you give Geoff a call yet? But then as his opinion is not aligned with your preconceived one, it wouldn't be wrth the trouble.

Oh for what it's worth in 3 recent cases the CDPP advised CASA against action, this little detail was naturally not important enough for CASA as retreat would be embarrassing, reminiscent of your attitude toward the possibility of an alternative opinion! From some of your past articles I thought you more intelligent, but then am not a good judge of character!

When you get the opportunity, look up the AAT act and look for Obligation to assist the tribunal and also provide ALL information used by the CASA decision maker allowing a level playing field. But then again that wouldn't be "adversarial" would it, almost TRUTH seeking, heaven forbid!

If only we could say "the problem solved", because if you regard it solved then you accept that CASA has always lied, so how is this now resolved, will they continue with their old habits or do you feel that CASA like you have seen the light. It takes a weak intellect to be so easily indoctrinated! Or now cleansed?

SW. "empty skies are safe skies"

[Kharon]

SVW – "In several of the cases the CDPP had recommended no action be taken as no case existed. A Model Litigant would think twice going against such advice, etc.

"look up the AAT act and look for Obligation to assist the tribunal and also provide ALL information used by the CASA decision maker allowing a level playing field", etc.
Sunny and the White rabbit have the truth of it. But in the real world there are a couple of issues which stand out :- the ignored CDPP decision and the poor defence.

Creamy will howl that CAR 269 is not a legal hidey hole for 'double jeopardy' but it is. CASA insist on 'criminal' everything; fine. Try a man for any crime ONCE, that's your lot. The Coppers (bless 'em) spend much time ensuring that the charges brought can be supported against determined defence, the CDPP sure of their prosecution ground, counters; and so it goes. Lets say our man gets off the hook, there is no way the CDPP can have a second bite of the cherry on 'the' charge. Not so for the CASA boys, round two happens in a Tribunal near you, despite CDPP advice that there is no case to answer. It's so very wrong.

Reading through some AAT and Court transcripts I notice how poorly the 'defence' are briefed by the client. There is no one to blame for this bar the sap in the dock; sure CASA will exploit the law, that's their lawyers job. If he didn't do that he'd be fired, but they do it very well indeed; and, particularly in the AAT utilise all the latitude allowed within that system. When it's your turn to sit in that hot kitchen be prepared and ensure your representative has all the facts, knows all the loop holes; and, is quite prepared to fight fire with fire.

Nope, not a job for Gentlemen, nor a game for those with sensitive skins or secrets to hide.

Selah

[Creampuff]

Stan, you are in effect saying:

The courts and tribunals are too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to spot and deal with atrocities committed by CASA

The Minister is too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to spot and deal with atrocities committed by CASA.

The Attorney-General and the Office of Legal Services Coordination are too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to spot and deal with atrocities committed by CASA.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman is too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to spot and deal with atrocities committed by CASA.

The executive of CASA is too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to discontinue committing, and to ensure its offices discontinue committing, atrocities in the name of CASA.

If all that’s true, you’re stuffed.

[Kharon]

Probably closer to the mark, bewitched by voodoo, smothered in pony pooh, seared by smoke or bamboozled by mirrors.

Just like most honest everyday folk seduced by any half arsed form of lunatic fanatic dogma. FCOL some people believe in Chemtrails, Cargo cults, Satanism, some respond to Nigerian email offering a fortune, Snake oil can still be bought, daughters still get pregnant and the Easter Bunny sells winning lottery tickets. But, as they say; if the hat fits. :ugh:

For examples see The Pickering Post. (http://pickeringpost.com/)

[Stan van de Wiel]

CP. Don’t put words in my mouth, no matter how tempting your summary. First of all under the present system(s) we’re ALL STUFFED.

Taking your itemised remarks:
The Courts are indifferent and often corrupt, but then Corruption has changed its meaning now having been culturally adopted from the “top” down, as in most of the third world and increasingly in the rest. The courts can only judge on the material before them so why give [them] more than is good for them. No judge will ask for more as he relies on the probity of the protector of “safety”. On no! there we have those MLDs again. Why do I have to bring them up in present company?

Not having personally met with the Minister I can only go by his TV appearances. The Minister has a lot on his plate and is dependent on advice from his bureaucrats. If the lack of response to my correspondence is anything to go by that should answer that question.

Not having received any response to my correspondence with the A.G.s office I can only blame Australia Post or my internet provider? It couldn’t be the office of our first solicitor now could it? I note from the current OLCS website that only Gov agencies can apply on their forms. Naturally CASA will have looked after that especially since the previous Minister Vaile had so nicely asked them to resolve the matters.

Ombudsman – after 7 years of procrastination by CASA (unfortunate delays by OLC before they changed to LSD) the Ombudsman’s assistant provided a whole new definition of [his] task, suggesting that “we focus on the future”. In other words it went into the “too hard basket”

As to CASA, I don’t think its stupidity, but a blind almost religious faith, akin to your own, gathering from your stance in almost any discussion on this forum. The indifference could stem from the belief in job security and the corruption from the secure position(s) of “power” by flying the “safety” banner. Noting that you have been away (from CASA) for a decade (?) and still follow the company line, either your indoctrination is still working well, or did you happen to be the protagonist in the first place, that, as well as writing policy!

Your dissertation on R206 back in 98 was interesting, but shouldn't you have checked the validity (expiry) of it first. would have been the opportunity to adopt proper legislation to control those nasty commercial operators. But maybe that was why J. Anderson dropped all reference to "commercial" in the legislation. But then what does a Minister know when it comes to CASA.

Thanks for your interest. SW "Empty skies are safe skies"

[Stan van de Wiel]

CP. You should entertain the remote possibility that courts and tribunals know what they are doing, and government agencies and their legal representatives are aware of and take seriously their model litigant responsibilities.

Many of us have and look what happened. Unless off-course we are QF or J*

GUIDANCE NOTE NO 1
The Office of Legal Services Coordination (OLSC) provides Guidance Notes in order to assist Australian Government Departments and Agencies, and legal services providers (as applicable), to comply with the Legal Services Directions, procure legal services, and deal with legal issues in an efficient and effective manner.
OLSC welcomes feedback on this Guidance Note.
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975: Obligation to assist the Tribunal
The obligation on the Commonwealth and its agencies to ‘use its best endeavours to assist the tribunal to make its decision’ is set out at paragraph 4 of Appendix B to the Directions, and forms part of the Model Litigant Obligation.
The obligation in the Directions to assist the tribunal echoes the addition of subsection 33(1AA) to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in 2005, which requires Government decision-makers to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to make its decision in relation to the proceeding.
The key point under both section 33(1AA) and the Legal Services Directions is that, rather than seeking to defend their original decision in the Tribunal, agencies need to focus on assisting the Tribunal to arrive at the correct or preferable decision.
What does this mean?

The ‘duty to assist’ recognises that there may be additional actions agencies can take in Tribunal proceedings to ensure the process runs smoothly and the right outcome is reached – and that agencies have a duty to take these actions.

This recognises the position of the Tribunal in reviewing the decision; that is, it considers the matter afresh ‘in the shoes’ of the original decision maker. This is in contrast to court litigation, which is adversarial and based on the review and defence of decisions.

Assisting the Tribunal to arrive at the correct or preferable decision may involve taking steps such as:

• making information easily available to the Tribunal
• avoiding delays
• presenting new material where relevant, and
• providing specialist evidence when it may assist.
This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide an example of conduct that would fulfil this obligation. The content of the obligation may change in the circumstances of each proceeding.
The courts have also commented that the ‘duty to assist’ the tribunal extends to requiring the Commonwealth to furnish the Tribunal with all available evidence that is guidance on the expected standard of conduct for the Commonwealth and its agencies before courts and tribunals is set out in the remainder of Appendix B to the Directions


Perhaps CASA HAS been using its BEST endeavours and therein lies the limiting factor. In the Schutt case: "The AAT requires Government decision-makers to use their best endeavours to assist" - the decision maker, I. Ogilvy was strangely not available and the AAT assisted CASA by refusing to have him summoned. Maybe there is something in the corruption of Courts you mentioned in an earlier posting.

Incidentally the decision-maker wasn't authorised by the Enforcement Manual, but that is another story.

trusting the above helps you sort out some of your misgivings about (withheld) evidence. ref. lesson 101 Ethics in legal studies.

SW "empty skies are safe skies"

[Creampuff]

As to CASA, I don’t think its stupidity, but a blind almost religious faith, akin to your own, gathering from your stance in almost any discussion on this forum. The indifference could stem from the belief in job security and the corruption from the secure position(s) of “power” by flying the “safety” banner. Noting that you have been away (from CASA) for a decade (?) and still follow the company line, either your indoctrination is still working well, or did you happen to be the protagonist in the first place, that, as well as writing policy!

Your dissertation on R206 back in 98 was interesting, but shouldn't you have checked the validity (expiry) of it first.Errrrm…. Have you read my thread on the regulatory reform program? If you consider it to be supportive of CASA, that would explain a lot.

And I’ve never written a dissertation (or policy) about regulation 206 or any other regulation.

It's these kinds of misconceptions that contribute to your evident frustration.

[Kharon]

- then perhaps a way to help educate the 'alleged' sinners could be decided: in time, with due consideration and; with a clear understanding what is law, how it all works and how the system operates. Would probably be memorable night.

CP - I assume it will be suggested that the Polar outcome occurred because CASA failed to discharge its model litigant obligation and the Federal Court was too stupid, lazy, indifferent or corrupt to notice. Creamy – No mate, with respect – (we seem to always be violently in agreement). Of course, at the Butson level of proceeding, CASA appears virginal, embarrassingly clean, pure, chaste and spotless. No quarrel. No argument; Butson 's 'team' clearly got the bull by the wrong end; and, in a purists debate, as usual you are 'technically' correct.

But, far and away from the 'black letter' (subjective, adversarial, prescriptive) law; the originating issues were somewhat 'puerile'. In fact, this was an eight year feast of legal bollicks; and, a one million dollar (Butson money) pissing competition, based on what could (should) have been settled over 'tea and biccy's. That' s where it should have started and finished. - Selah.

In short; Butson was correct until he (as a competant, qualified Chief pilot) challenged a half wit child of the establishment – all over – circle the wagons. I would; have and will continue protect my own; right or wrong (within reason).

It still remains; as fact, that the base arguments would not, nor could not withstand any 'fair dinkum', operationally based challenge. The FOI was, is and will always be wrong.

Well, here endeth the first lesson - the legal action is now history; and, as the Judge said –(paraphrased) - his counsel stuffed it; royally. Creamy wish you would get with the force, the dark side sux; honest, it does. If ever an industry needed wise council – it is this one, right now.

Allah Karrin.

[gobbledock]

Why is it so hard for some to fathom that quite simply 'Governments are above the law'. Governments, which includes individual departments and its employees and Ministers and their long list of internal supporters are nothing short of entities that can make, break, rort, lie, distort, corrupt, twist, spend at will and do anything they want, anywhere at any time.

The ATO reigns supreme at this. No accountability and makes/changes the rules to suit itself. It has more power than any military section. Hell, in general, if you go bankrupt you don't have to repay a cent to anybody, accept of course the ATO. They are the only entity that you still have to repay your debt too, everybody else that you owe money to gets rogered...

The system is corrupt. Governments are corrupt, all of them. People who actually believe that governments are somewhat reasonable, upright or even hold a measure of dignity are fools or dreamers. They, governments, and their individual departments all stink of ****e up to the eyeballs. As for the CASA they do as they please if, when or how they wish too, anytime anywhere. Thats the nature of goverments and their departments. They do it because they can. Why not? Who could or would stop them? A few of us pruners? Hehehehe what a force we are indeed, NOT.

The only way to force change is if all the people stand up united and force through the changes they want. It's been done overseas in three days and less. Unfortunately though this is Australia, we will continue to bend over and grab our ankles as that is what Western Democracy stands for.
It is the Western way. My taxes last year were used to pay for Politicians shrimp cocktails, bonuses, first class airfares, overseas 'study trips', help fund Greece's bailout, buy Ruddy a potential seat on the UN, pissed away on pink bats and failed regulatory reform for aviation and giving illegal immigrants a free home and financial assistance, more than what my family and I receive..Oh and I forgot, Churches don't have to pay tax at all and can build up billion dollar empires because they 'pretend' to act in the name of god. All sanctioned by government of course.

So if you still feel the need to question 'why CASA does what it does and is allowed to get away with it' then it might time be to bury one's head back in the sand or drift back off to cloud cuckoo land!
IT WILL NEVER CHANGE!! However we can have some fun trying to change it!

And no, I haven't been drinking, yet, but I am about to have my first glass of red for the night, to celebrate 4 maginificent days off. My highlight over the next 4 days will be receiving delay messages, texts and begging from Executives to 'come in to work and help out'! I will enjoy ignoring those pony pooh requests and watching some of their precious revenue follow a path to Luggage Point.
So to my fellow aviators I raise my glass and toast you. To the government and it's tentacles I raise my white pimply ass towards you.

[Creampuff]

In short; Butson was correct until he (as a competant, qualified Chief pilot) challenged a half wit child of the establishment – all over – circle the wagons. I would; have and will continue protect my own; right or wrong (within reason).So on what matter of technical judgment did Mr Butson and the ‘half wit child of the establishment’ differ? On what basis do you presume to determine that Mr Butson was correct and the half wit child of the establishment was incorrect?

I’m guessing it will have been a case of the ignorant differing from the ignorant: someone running an aircraft on the basis of an OWT having an argument with an FOI who subscribes to a different OWT.

It’s a very shallow gene pool in aviation.

[gobbledock]

Has Creampuff morphed into Flyingfiend????

http://loveforlife.com.au/files/Matrix%202.jpg

[Kharon]

I oft' wonder why you hold back – I do. Why don't you just step on out an say exactly what's on you're mind.
Power to your mind, strength to your belief; and, Godspeed on your never failing mission for truth.

PAIN is real, on the map and active. PM will do the trick.. Big breath – just do it. Selah.
Duke Senior: Sweet are the uses of adversity,
Which, like the toad, ugly and venomous,
Wears yet a precious jewel in his head;
And this our life, exempt from public haunt,
Finds tongues in trees, books in the running brooks,
Sermons in stones, and good in every thing. As you like it. Apologies to T28D (who may, just need some real race sailors).

Ok - Brass tacks: CP gird up your loins - no more Mister nice guy OK. I have tried -so game on. Goes like this, dah de dah, de dahdly de de dah. It can be easily proven that after the labotomy, the average FOI (stands for) is basically - ???

[Sarcs]

Reason: Is CP paid by the post or click ?- Jayzuss.

Exactly "K", CP obviously hasn't been on the pointy end of the prick, all power to PAIN and some to VOCAA too!:ok:

Robert Kennedy: I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the world

So get with the program GD (and maybe CP), we can bicker and bitch all we like on pprune however it will not (on its own) effect a change.

Come on you know it's wrong! There are fellow aviators and operators that are being severely pineappled in the false name of SAFETY!

[gobbledock]

There are fellow aviators and operators that are being severely pineappled in the false name of SAFETY!
Really? Here, in Australia? Wow. Now who would have thought??:E

My local FOI!!
http://www.documentingreality.com/forum/attachments/f2/260562d1301590085-what-pineapple-head-random_pineapple_01.jpg

[gobbledock]

Aagh yes how things have changed. For the better??

The more amusing stuff (to me at least) I have bolded.

http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting-points/107054-new-casa-boss.html


30 October 2003
A132/2003

New CEO for Civil Aviation Safety Authority

International aviation safety management specialist, BruceByron AM, has been appointed as the new Chief Executive Officer and Director of Aviation Safety for the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).

Announcing the decision, the Deputy Prime Minister and Federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, said Mr Byron would bring a wealth of experience to the challenging role of CEO of CASA.

“Mr Byron is highly regarded throughout the aviation sector for his vision and commitment to safe skies,” Mr Anderson said. “He has made significant contributions to the development of Australian aviation in military, government and industry roles.”

Mr Byron is a qualified pilot, instructor and examiner. He has been an aviation trainer, commanded the RAAF Central Flying School, worked with the former Bureau of Air Safety Investigation and was a flight examiner with the former Department of Aviation. In industry roles he has supervised resource company jet operations, managed the operations of a large Australian airline and developed safety management systems for three airlines. He is currently the Chairman of the Aviation Safety Forum, an industry group providing strategic advice to CASA.

“I believe Mr Byron will drive the Government’s aviation reform agenda forward, lead CASA’s change and progress, and ensure Australia’s aviation safety regulator is world class.”

The Civil Aviation Amendment Act 2003, recently passed through
Parliament, is a key feature of the Government’s reform agenda. The Act provides for:

the abolition of the CASA Board
and appointment of a new CEO and
Director of Aviation Safety;
a greater role for the Minister in setting policy directions and performance standards for CASA; and
the Minister to establish consultation machinery for industry and
stakeholders.
As Director of Aviation Safety, Mr Byron
will retain independence in his responsibility for managing CASA’s regulatory
function.


Mr Byron will take up his appointment as CEO on 1 December 2003. This will allow him to conclude his current commitments.

Mr Anderson thanked Mr Bruce Gemmell, the outgoing acting Director of Aviation Safety, the CASA Board and the former Director of Aviation Safety, Mick Toller, for their contribution and the instrumental role they have played in bringing CASA to its current position under the reform agenda.

Media contact
Paul Chamberlin 02 62777680 / 0419 233989

[Kharon]

Musical assistance for Friday pondering.

Group Therapy.

[Stan van de Wiel]

So on what matter of technical judgment did Mr Butson and the ‘half wit child of the establishment’ differ? On what basis do you presume to determine that Mr Butson was correct and the half wit child of the establishment was incorrect?

I’m guessing it will have been a case of the ignorant differing from the ignorant: someone running an aircraft on the basis of an OWT having an argument with an FOI who subscribes to a different OWT.

Presuming that this occurred during a company AUDIT what right did the "half wit" have to challenge Butson's M.E. procedures, presumably used by Butson for many years and initially approved by CAA. Was there some safety incident which triggered it or simply another example of CASA "micromanagement", the control freak syndrome.

Most Asian countries have finally stepped back from letting their military micromanage all GA. In Australia we can't wait until CASA runs all of G.A. Except off course promotion.

Thanks CP for identifying Butson's problem.

[Creampuff]

Sarcs said:[W]e can bicker and bitch all we like on PPRuNe however it will not (on its own) effect a change.Not true. All we need to do is use PPRuNe to attack and vilify everyone with whom we disagree, and the Easter Bunny will eventually change everything we don’t like. :ok:

Stan: I didn’t identify Butson’s problem. The Federal Court did. If you’d just read what the Federal Court said, you’d note that it said:The pleadings reveal no more than that CASA and its officers differed with Polar and Mr Butson as to the correct exercise of CASA’s statutory powers and that, by accepting an enforceable voluntary undertaking under the CAA, the matter might be resolved in conformity with CASA’s understanding of its obligations.I merely speculated that, based on the widespread OWTs about piston engines that are treated as gospel in the third world that passes for a GA industry in Australia, Mr Butson and the FOI were probably both wrong.

[blackhand]

Presuming that this occurred during a company AUDIT what right did the "half wit" have to challenge Butson's M.E. procedures, presumably used by Butson for many years and initially approved by CAA.Is this a known known, or an unknown known, or perhaps an unknown unknown.
Cheers

[Stan van de Wiel]

Stan: I didn’t identify Butson’s problem. The Federal Court did. If you’d just read what the Federal Court said, you’d note that it said:.

What allegedly started of as a Aviation Safety problem, became a legal technical one which the court sort of identified.

.
The pleadings reveal no more than that CASA and its officers differed with Polar and Mr Butson as to the correct exercise of CASA’s statutory powers and that, by accepting an enforceable voluntary undertaking under the CAA, the matter might be resolved in conformity with CASA’s understanding of its obligations.


I can understand Butson's reluctance to sign an EVU when that would be an admission of guilt. That's the typical stand over tactics we all know so well.
Then we have CASA s "understanding" (is that like interpretation?) and this was really all about "EGO" or was it "flight safety"? with CASA we tend to forget, the picture is blurred (now were are my second set of specs?)

. I merely speculated that, based on the widespread OWTs about piston engines that are treated as gospel in the third world that passes for a GA industry in Australia, Mr Butson and the FOI were probably both wrong.

But, but, Butson had been using this technique for years, likely passed several renewals with CASA experts(?) a good thing that the "half wit" discovered the problem in time. How many other operators has he rescued? Must be due for an AM at least. As to "third world" I agree, after nearly two decades flying o/s I noted the difference. Could it be the change to CASA or the simple addition of the S word, it couldn't be the "micromanagement" of a Nanny State now could it?

In 2000, it cost me $550,000 in legal advice re the AvGas contamination. Was fuel discussed NO purely a legal exercise in establishing the validity of a Class Action in Victoria. Where was CASA with this Safety Issue? The Butson case is also one that has no focus on safety, the pity is that the defendants are still in positions to repeat such actions. Heaven help us!

SW. Empty skies are safe skies!

[Frank Arouet]

This half page intentionally left blank






empty skies for all








this half page intentionally left blank

[Sarcs]

Interesting opinion piece in yesterday's Australian 'Legal Affairs' section which will have Fort Fumble's legalcrats rubbing their hands in glee!:ok:
Law Society of NSW - News & media (http://www.lawsociety.com.au/about/news/643979)

Not only will they be able to cook you slowly in the AAT under the tribunal's 'guilty until to proven innocent or liable and who cares about the evidence' approach, but they will theoretically be able to force you to fess up and incriminate yourself in criminal proceedings!

This line says it all:
At least the police warning could be simpler, perhaps "anything you say may be used against you; anything you don't say, will be".


Rather simplifies "Appendix 1-6 Coordinated Enforcement Process F, see here: http://www.casa.gov.au/enf/009rx01.pdf ...soon it will be 'Go directly to Jail and do not collect $200'! No longer will they have to worry about going back to Process A for another round of 'gotchas!'

Soon Fort Fumble will no longer have to worry about that filthy, uncouth, undisciplined GA rabble..:{...off to Montreal for a talkfest about how we out foxed and totally decimated the GA industry in Oz!

Hang on sec...just had to check my passport and birth certificate to see if I really do reside in Australia!!:ugh:

Hmmm pg 4 are we overdue a Nazi reference??:ok:

[aroa]

There has been the sound of jackboots in the CASA corridors for yonks...aint anything new.!:mad:
That OK.??

[Sarcs]

That'll do it!:ok: Thought for a moment I might have to sing out to our Bavarian mate Saur Kraut...

Hey aroa how'd you get on with that HOCOLEA mob??:{

[Kharon]

Our resident hacker has been monitoring the footwear orders within the upper echelons of the organisation through "Willy leaks". Jackboots, you'll all be pleased to hear, are out.:D

Secret information is available, but to protect the innocent we are only allowed to direct interested persons to:

The great footwear scandal. (http://www.crookedbrains.net/2010/12/creative-slipper-sandal-designs.html)

Sarcs - that opinion piece is interesting: seems you get shut up if you shut up; and shut up if you don't shut up. Right; cup of tea, bex and a nice lie down I think. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/confused.gif

(http://www.crookedbrains.net/2010/12/creative-slipper-sandal-designs.html)

[Sarcs]

Good catch "K" some of which feature on here:

[YOUTUBE]Crazy Shoes - YouTube

The boots at 0:14 will probably end up as required footwear for avid stormtrooper followers...the jackboot of the 21st century perhaps??:ok:

[Kharon]

OK – The great match the shoe to the department competition. Grand prize two chocolate frogs. (donated by Jabbawocky).

My turn first

Video Time – your wearer selection. - Reason for selection.
00.15 – Legal services toilers – keeping feet out of pony pooh.
00.37 – AAT witness protection – letting you know, we care.
00.44 – Legal services management- less pony pooh avoidance required.
00.52 – Top floor only – conference dancing selection.
01.02 – Field managers selection – clinging to slippery poles.
01.09 – Finance only – user pays, and pays – no pressure.
01.16 – Reserved for heroes – ideal for those who lost toes in the arse kicking wars.
01.20 – Voodoo room only – an elegant confection of fantasy.
01.26 – Legal services females only – keep your snacks fresh.
01.31 – Human resources - Disappeared crawlers recovery and family notification.
01.41 – Secret squirrels – for covert enforcement functions only (and sleep overs).
01.45 – Strictly Top floor – reserved for after 8 conference wear.
02.00 – Industry reps – ideal for wading through it every day.
02.12 – ASA spin doctors – Toys for the boys (and girls).
02.18 – Senator special – corrective footwear.
:D:D:D

[Cactusjack]

What about the 'RM Jackboot wearing team lead FOI' from Brisbane?
Un vere did he dissapear to yah? Oon got sidelined and vent to the turd floor in fort fumbles asylum in ze Brisbane oon never to be heard from nor harass industry again!

[Kharon]

Cactus Jack (Esq) – sorry mate barred from competition; CASA rules, there were no RM's in the video clip (no flaming birds either). You can of course contest this at an AAT (Innuendo) hearing, near you within the next 3 years and $60, 000. NEXT!.

:D:D Big time. Thanks.

[Up-into-the-air]

An Italian suppository!!!

[Sarcs]

I notice that Albo's circus is off to the AAT, it will be interesting to see if the circus adheres to the MLR! Or maybe it will all fizzle out into some ADR then get noted by the OLSC and the ROLIA in their annual reports. Then eventually be tabled in Parliament by some obscure MHR backbencher and consigned to history in the volumes of Hansard....but maybe not!!

This Archerfield Airport Chamber of Commerce and various stakeholders are packing a bit of a punch, check out their joint Media Release..wow!

http://www.aacci.org.au/pdf/MediaRelease_GA_JointIndustry+attachments.pdf

[thorn bird]

Oh good grief here we go again...Minister cops flack from media!!
Skull cops Flack from minister!!!
Cant shut down Tiger again can they???

[Sarcs]

Talking of the AAT if there is anyone who is out there prepared to give a bit back and perhaps hold a beacon for the GA industry, sure would beat the current RAAF jocks etc, well take a look at this advert:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/AATEXW003.jpg

Oh and there is also a slot for Creamy!:ok:

http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w448/PAIN_00123/AATDP004.jpg

...although I'm not sure if I should be encouraging him:rolleyes:

So for those with a slightly legal bent and concerns for the industry, who are semi-retired and after some beer money it could be a good gig!
Please Note: All former CASA employees need not apply!
ps I guess that counts you out creamy, sorry mate!

[gobbledock]

Sarcs,
What anexciting opportunity indeed. I figure Frank, Kharon, myself, biscuit, up-into-the-air, thornbird, aroa, oh dear and the list continues, won't be welcome to apply.
One of the key criteria they would not be seeking is for applicants to have an open mind, honesty, integrity, aversion to pony pooh, transparency and so forth.
As for the deputy president will definitely creamy, flyingfiend, Clinton and perhaps the voodoo witch doctor himself would be fine candidates with a robust acumen and highly tuned sense of spin.
The successful candidates will receive training and attend courses in buls#it 101, spin and deflection, bureaucratic linguistics and trough gouging. Should be a nice little earner.............

Outgoing tribunal members pictured below:

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQC4rGlWq2-8eQRfruz0UMFaO-NpZXMRsXnjFQY_llGdPfRNoZwaQ

[Sarcs]

Yeah Gobbles your probably right the AAT is more than likely another one of those EOI jobs that they advertise cause they have to...just extending the trough outside or is that takeaway pig trough? Oh well back to the two Dumbos in the corner....let's call it eleporn!

[Up-into-the-air]

Must be almost 5PM Friday:

Had a bit of time to do some reading and this popped up:

[Read more in the Sydney Morning Herald article by Kim Sawyer who is an honorary fellow with the school of historical and philosophical studies at the University of Melbourne. The power of the selfish incentive (http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/the-power-of-the-selfish-incentive-20120929-26ryt.html#ixzz2BhC1rOUc:) ]The power of the selfish incentive (http://www.smh.com.au/national/public-service/the-power-of-the-selfish-incentive-20120929-26ryt.html#ixzz2Bh4J6m2F)

in a Google search for :

"power to prosecute by civil aviation safety authority"

We have traditionally adopted an approach where regulators are mandated to detect and prosecute corruption. This approach empowers industry regulators such as the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and Australian Securities and Investments Commission, auditors-general, ombudsmen, law-enforcement agencies and state-based commissions to fight against corruption. But the approach has become a patchwork quilt. There is no uniform legislation across Australia in areas such as fraud prevention, anti-corruption commissions, or whistleblowing; and little evidence of the costs and benefits of our fight against corruption. The anecdotal evidence that exists suggests the fight is highly inefficient; the failure to effectively prosecute the AWB and Reserve Bank of Australia cases of bribery suggests a culture of non-compliance that is tolerated by regulators and policymakers. We depend too much on investigative journalists for transparency.or the final para which says:

In the fight against corruption, Australia must now consider a market-based approach that gives whistleblowers incentives. As the US experience has shown, this confers substantial pay-offs to governments and taxpayers. It is an insurance policy for a culture of compliance. And it would permit Australian whistleblowers the opportunity to show the real benefits of the public-private partnership called whistleblowing.


From the November 2012 Senate inquiry and casa's response:

http://i1175.photobucket.com/albums/r623/soilmaster/uploads%20to%20pprune/casaandhonestyreplysubmissionNovember2012-1-1.jpg

Note 5.10.11 above and in casa's web site, the following is a direct cut and paste:

Prosecution

Where CASA receives information that suggests that there may have been a breach of the legislation, the matter may be considered for investigation and referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) in accordance with CASA’s enforcement strategy and procedural guidelines and having regard to the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. This would generally include any contraventions that:

1. Are deliberate and serious or that demonstrate a reckless disregard for the safety rules;
2. Are part of a pattern of similar contraventions by the same individual or organisation;
3. Involve knowing or reckless breaches of the Civil Aviation Act; or
4. Seriously endanger the safety of persons other than the person committing the contravention.

Enforcement Manual, Chapter 11 Criminal Action - Prosecution

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/manuals/regulate/enf/009r011.pdf

This says in part:

11.2 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to explain the process of referral of matters to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP), the use of prosecution as an enforcement tool, the responsibilities of CASA and its officers in relation to such referrals and the procedures to be taken when such action is being considered.
Surely that means ALL infringements should be referred and casa has the power to prosecute.

Just do some careful reading of the Manual and how the process has been misused by casa.

[gobbledock]

Just do some careful reading of the Manual and how the process has been misused by casa.
CASA don't like the word 'misuse' being used in connection with their highly esteemed organisation. Besides, it is just a manual.

Manual
n
1. a book, esp of instructions or information, i.e CASA Surveillance Procedures Manual

A manual can be interpereted whichever way they see fit at the time. Personally, I would like to take the majority of their rules, documents, manualls and thinly worded but carefully scripted get out of jail free documents and bind them all up really tightly, turn them sideways, add just a dollop of lube and shove them straight up there.............

[Up-into-the-air]

I found these in a trawl through the casa web site for 20011/ 2012:

EF12/2054
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Administrative Action -***- ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/2048
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Administrative Action - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/2089
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - *** - ARN *** - Seized Pilot Files - March 2012
EF12/4086
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - ***- ARN *** - EAN ***- Sydney Region
EF12/3819
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - *** Enforcement - ***
EF12/3427
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/106
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - Pilot Files Associated Evidence
EF12/71
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - Seized Pilot Files 30/11/2011
EF12/3613
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN *** - VFR / IFR incident
EF12/240
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/934
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - ***ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/239
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral -*** ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/4028
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN - *** - Sydney Region
EF12/2258
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/89
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/1814
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/3650
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/2641
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/3660
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN *** - Sydney Region
EF12/2259
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral -***s - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/764
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - ***ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/2604
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/3034
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN *** - COUNSELLING
EF12/3490
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/285
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** ARN *** EAN ***
EF12/3425
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral - *** - ARN *** - EAN ***
EF12/1953
ENFORCEMENT - COORDINATED ENFORCEMENT - Referral -*** ARN *** EAN ***

These are 27 occurrences of actions against pilots. I posted some time ago the number of active medicals in aviation, which is less than 30, 000 people at the end of 2011. This of course includes ASA, CPL's, PPL's and maintenance personnel.

This is for co-ordinated enforcement, which is [from the manual]:

Coordinated Enforcement is a policy aimed at achieving better-informed and consistent enforcement across CASA.
As a result of a decision taken at the Chief Operating Officer’s (COO) Meeting on 10 August 2005, a process of ‘Coordinated Enforcement’ was introduced on a trial basis. Since February 2008, the Coordinated Enforcement Process has been a formal CASA policy, endorsed by the Director of Aviation Safety and Chief Executive Officer. The Coordinated Enforcement Process includes the following elements:
􀁺 Retention of formal decision-making responsibility for Administrative and Civil Action by the delegates at senior management level
􀁺 Retention of formal decision-making responsibility for the referral of matters to the CDPP and for the issuance of Infringement Notices with the Manager, Enforcement Policy and Practice (MEPP)
􀁺 Discussion and consultation involving (at least) the responsible operational manager(s) and the MEPP, and including, where appropriate, other operational and legal officers.

However the differences between large and small is obvious here:

There are and will necessarily be certain differences between the ways in which aspects of CASA’s dealings with larger and smaller operators proceed, and between the approaches CASA might adopt in addressing particular safety issues in relation to different, and different kinds of operators.

The answer ??

Make sure you have the matter heard in Court to ensure that the proper Rules of Evidence apply

[T28D]

I went to a Marine Industry presentation by AMSA yesterday in Fremantle 200+ folk were there.

The guts of the presentation was the new 2012 Act which harmonises the Qualifications Australia with along with the registration requirements for commercial vessels.

Really refreshing presentation, much emphasis on co ordinated enforcement and the controlof inspectors to ENSURE the enforcement AustraliaWide would be consistent and fair to the Industry.

Where oh where did we let the fools in CASA take us into the dark world that Aviation enforcement is ????????

[Paragraph377]

So the question is again raised 'Will this wet lettuce review result in the end of such practises as the 1659 Friday afternoon faxes'? Well in regards to faxes sent to industry, unlikely. But in regards to some of those who roam the halls of sleepy hollow I am hearing out of Can'tberra that there may be one or two Fort Fumblers who will receive their own Friday afternoon fax in the not so distant future :ok:
Seeing is believing and fantasies are free so who knows. Then again I reckon the WLR team will in fact run out of lettuce leaves and end up using wet teabags on the CASA miscreants. Anyone for Liptons?

[Frank Arouet]

The rat stoppers have been put out on the ropes, but there is conjecture if they work in reverse.