gaunty re Qantas takeover
If you bought QF shares when the takeover was first mooted you have a say by declining to sell your shares to the consortium. It ain't over until the fat lady sings.....

Yes, Creampuff. Late night post........ :uhoh:

And my guess CASA/DPP are expediently avoiding prosecuting the Qantas pilots, because they fear the outcome........

Dick,

I totally agree with you on Hicks and on the selling of QANTAS.

Two excellent causes for you to devote your considerable energy, resources, time and money to.

The Howard government have abandoned their first duty - protection of one of their citizens and ensuring his human right to a fair trial - whether guilty or not. If only some of the blind right wing conservative supporters can seen through their ideology, and consider how they would feel if John Howard was sending their child to the American gallows.

Torres

eerm the prosecution is already on foot, the only people who can stop or withdraw it is the DPP.

Were they to do that without a very very good reason it would deny the pilots their day in court and the opportunity to clear themselves. If I were the pilots I would then sue their socks off.

I've said it before in another thread and I'll say it again, the charges were laid in the context of the times and according to the rules.

And I dont suppose any body asked if it is in fact the pilots who are insisting as is their inalienable right on proper procedure who are "causing" the "delay". I guess not because that would remove a perfect opportunity for a bit of media heroics.:{

I have some serious doubts about the answer supplied to Mr Smith by the Deputy DPP.

"Procedural issues ........... 5 years ........... beyond our control"

What rot!

I have appeared for clients in the Launceston Magistrates Court and never did it take 5 years to get a matter to hearing. In fact, an unresolved matter sitting on the books for 5 years is likely to get the less than pleased attention of the presiding magistrate.

Far more likely is that there are extensive negotiations between the parties and at their request the matter has being delayed.

However, the delay is unfair to the pilots concerned. Despite what some posters have said an unresolved prosecution does create pressure on the accused. I would have thought that their legal representatives would have forced the issue before now, its quite amazing what can happen when you demand a hearing. The majority of settlements are forced at the court door.

PLovett

In your experience, what kind of 'negotiations' can occur between the parties to a prosecution?

Creampuff

Everything from why a prosecution is a waste of time and effort in that the evidence does not support the charge to haggling over facts to be presented in return for a plea.

However, it does not take 5 years. I cannot comprehend anything that could take that long. It raises suspicion that there is some other agenda at work.

PLovett

is quite probably so.

However IMHO it does not necessarily follow that;

when one is unaware of the meat of the likely;

One could support the argument that the DPP went off sorta half cocked in the context of the political and social concerns on foot at the time of the offence and now find it difficult to withdraw without redress for the damage to the pilots reputations etc. If I were the pilots I would be dug in pretty deep.

PLovett, you state:

You may have seen the Steve Creedy article in Saturday’s Australian newspaper. (See here).

Unbelievably it says in relation to the delay in prosecution:

Steve Creedy is normally accurate and his sources are normally accurate. What an amazing claim by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau – that “there was no case to answer.” Surely this explains what is going on. Does anyone else have a comment?

****su Tonka, in relation to my actions regarding Hicks and Qantas you state:

Do I get a hint that you want me to devote my time to causes that you support, and then not devote any time to causes which you do not support? I’m sure you understand that human beings quite often have different views – we may agree on most things but not all. That is pretty healthy as far as I’m concerned.

I will continue to devote my time on aviation causes. Of course, I could be wrong. My suggestion is to give me a phone call and we will arrange to have a cup of coffee and a talk.

Justapplhere, you query whether I introduced the administrative fines system. The original system was introduced in 1990-1991 when I was the Chairman of the CAA. When I came back to CASA in 1997 I found that the legislation had gone through but no action had been taken. I then produced a document entitled A New Approach to Enforcement which stated that we would go ahead with the administrative fines system. The decision was made by my Board at that time and the administrative fines system was introduced.

Interesting article and Creedy is usually correct:
Unbelievable!!! :confused: :confused:

Integrity
 

What's happening here is seriously eroding my perception of the integrity of the organisations concerned.

No hint implied Dick.

On many things aviation-wise I do tend to have a contrary point of view to you - it is true.

On some I actually agree with you, but sadly realise that the enormous bureaucracy has an incredible momentum - be it slow - of it's own that is difficult for individuals to change. (When you shake your head in bewilderment so often, you just get a headache!)

My comment, if anything, implied that you would have more chance of success - and probably more public support generally - addressing those other excellent issues.

Dick,
I read the paper yesterday and was not aware of this "matter" i use this choice of word because I believe it should be an internal matter and used as a way of learning from it. Not something to be "draged through courts" and especially not with you acting as some kind of whiping boy stiring on the masses.
What about all the other "events" that have happened in QF.? Do you want to drag them into the courts as well?
I feel this is a bad reflection on you.

OK, after a bit of research a few things have become clearer.

Firstly, I understand that the prosecution did not commence until late 2004 so its hardly been 5 years before the court.
Secondly, the matter is to be heard in the Supreme Court of Tasmania, not the Magistrates Court. There is no District or County Court jurisdiction in Tasmania hence the hearing in the Supreme Court.
Thirdly the committal hearing has already been held and there were transcript problems arising from this. In Tasmania court proceedings are taped and transcripts are then prepared. Sometimes the recording equipment throws a wobbly. The tapes had to be enhanced to provide the transcripts.
Fourthly, I understand that one Supreme Court Judge has expressed his displeasure at the time taken to progress the matter.
Fithly, the procedural delays referred to by the Deputy DPP are defence applications for the provision of inordinate amounts of evidence and requests for deferral of the matter by defence counsel.
Finally, I understand that both the DPP and CASA are ready for the matter to proceed to a hearing.

IIRC, gaunty posted the DPP guidelines for a prosecution on the first incarnation of this thread. The DPP is an independent person who is not subject to the whims and dictates of others. The office he heads is very busy which will not waste court time or public money on matters where there is little chance of success. That the DPP is willing to pursue this matter suggests that the evidence meets their guidelines which may also explain the delaying tactics employed by defence counsel.

A final point. The administrative fines system cannot apply to the matters before the Tasmanian court as I understand the offences relate to a breach of the Act, not the Regulations.

Please posters, do not take what I have written as being critical of either party or suggesting the guilt or innocence of the pilots. Delaying tactics are part of a defence counsel's bag of tricks and there can be very good reasons for using the tactic.

Plovett...............
Q? why, if the so-called 'offense' took place well before 2005 has the matter taken so long to come before the court?
You state:
Well if that's the case then I'm buggered if I can understand WHY after 5 years the matter still isn't in court if it HASN'T been the subject of:
and that this whole 'episode' of legal process isn't just a total waste of time, effort, and taxpayer funds. :ugh:

.... so in summary ... no lets not :hmm: ... over to you Mr Smith .... what exactly were you trying to achieve? :suspect:

Dick, please - i am begging you, for the good of everyone, never say :mad: anything to do with aviation ever again as long as you live. I feel sure if you do this we will all be a lot happier and aviation safety will not be compromised. Fly your whirlybird around the south pole again if you really need something to amuse yourself. Get your law degree and represent Mr Hicks. Hell, run as an independent against Maxine and L'il johnnie in Bennelong.:D

PLovett

Thank you for that bit of enlightenment. :D I am not at all surprised and a little bit, no a lot comforted that due process is in train. :ok: The Supreme Court Judge can harumph all he likes, the defence is entitled to take whatever steps are are available to them.

EXFOI you may better ask Mr Smith why with the resources available to him, he was not able to gain the same information as PLovett. I expect the same information would have been available to him and I dont doubt PLovett has neither used nor revealed any privileged information.

So I guess in the interests of personal integrity we can soon expect an explicatory piece in the Australian as a follow up to the last.

Higs,you state:

The only way I knew about the original prosecution was because I read it in The Australian newspaper. It has been made extremely clear in one of my posts that I believe the administrative fines system can be used for this type of enforcement action. After all, that is what it was designed to do.

I do not know what other “events” you are referring to, however if they are safety related I do not wish to drag them into the courts but I believe they should not be kept hidden. This works against everyone – Qantas passengers, flight crew and the owners of the airline.

Justapplhere, believe what you want about the administrative fines introduction. It is interesting that you say the system has proved largely unsuccessful. I understand there were about 70 successful administrative fine actions last year. I don’t know what you mean by unsuccessful. Presumably if the people paid the fine they decided that was better than going to court. Possibly you are referring to the fact that no one powerful has been taken on with the administrative fines system – i.e. Qantas or any other major airline, or even smaller airlines such as Transair. In my view this is a pity – everyone should be treated without fear and favour by CASA.

EXFOI, I note the quote from your posting (since removed):

EXFOI, I had no idea they were losing experienced staff and I do not know what you are alluding to. Would you be able to explain what is “obvious” to you – that is, why the experienced staff are leaving? Is it to do with morale in the organisation? Is it because they have pretty well been captured by the big end of town, or do you have another explanation? Do you know the name of an experienced person who has left the ATSB that we could talk to?

So, this statement which started a previous thread may be correct: