CASA Loses Again
 

Some of you may have read in the AOPA testimony (p37)to the Senate Inquiry into CASA that:

This particular operator operates a flying school in Victoria. He sacked his chief flying instructor. Guess where he went? He went and got a job at CASA. Then it became payback time. This particular individual filmed with a video camera at 5 o’clock in the morning, supposedly showing that the aircraft was on a charter flight and had taken off in fog. I have been flying for long enough to know that the pilot is the only one who can determine if you have 1.8 forward visibility through the cockpit to take off. This particular individual filmed him taking off and said it was done in fog conditions.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Anyhow, that is pending.

Mr Rodgers—That is pending, yes.

Well it ain't pending anymore. The courts threw it out, but not before the successful defense cost the school $30K or so.

Walrus

CASA = Were Not Happy - Till your Not Happy...

One would expect the Operators lawyers to apply to the courts for an order for costs?

Wouldnt be the first bloke to take a job at CASA and then target his previous employer..And these are the kind of wankers working for casa, what hope anyone got..

If the matter has been finalised by the Court and judgment published, it may help the rest of us if you publish a link to the Judgment?

:confused:

rotaryman

If the matter was heard in the AAT, (Administrative Appeals Tribunal) CASA's preferred playground, no costs are awarded.

If bastardry is afoot, as it used to be before BB's culture change, always seek to be prosecuted
rather than be played with in the AAT and let the costs be awarded appropriately.

It would help if we had more details, including which Court jurisdiction? :confused:

Bastardry is definitely afoot, and I suspect there may be a spate of "routine" audits in the future.

I'm not sure where the ruling was made and a troll of the internet hasn't found it. I will keep trying and will post the link if I can find it. My information came from people who assisted with the defence.

Walrus

That'd be Veritas Liberabit Vos.
:ok:

Court lists are public documents.

Instead of all the usual pointless second-hand commentary, could someone just post the name of the court and the date, and I will post a link to the public list.

Creampuff,

I have been trying to find it. It happened in the Ringwood Magistrates Court on Friday 18 July. I've tried to find any decisions made by this court and haven't been successful. Will keep trying, though. I don't want to publish anything here that is not in the public domain.

Walrus

A magistrates court is not normally a court of record. That is, there is no published record of its findings. Best chance is a local newspaper carrying a story unless the matter goes on appeal.

I've done a search of the Ringwood Magistrate's court list for 18 July 2008 (here:
Search Court Lists) and the result is 'no cases'.

A magistrate's court's decisions might not be published, but the matter on which a decision is made should be listed.

Perhaps the lists are deleted after the day covered by the list.

It's annoying that it's not on line anywhere. I suggest that people watch the Senate Submissions page carefully if they want more info. I am expecting a supplementary submission to support the original evidence.

Walrus

The court hearing was Monday, 21 July

The criminal list for the Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008 is here: Ringwood Magistrates' Court

Which matter is the matter to which this thread refers?

Can we hold off on the theories until Creampuff or Walrus can post the facts, preferably in the form of a judges decision, media summary or similar?

Thanks

Tail Wheel


My sincere apologies Creamie - no offense intended! :}

Just finger trouble! and a failure to re-read my post before hitting the submit button! :{

Walrus or Gupta, were either of you there? That is, were you in the court in question, when the matter in question was thrown out? If so, in what court were you located, and on what date were you located there?

Senate Committees sometimes get picky about the accuracy of minor facts like when something happened and where. And often people who don't get the 'when' and 'where' quite right, don't get the 'what' quite right.

[PS: TW, 'Creamcake' sounds slightly unsavoury!]

That sounds better! :} :}

Tail Wheel

I've already posted the court list for Ringwood Magistrates' Court for 21 July 2008.

This one smells like an embellished, third-hand account of half a story.

Ha Ha Ha Ha :ok:

Here we go!!

It is annoying that I can't find the transcripts; indeed they may not be available to the public as others have mentioned. I know the information is good because I have spoken to the gentleman charged and he indicated he has viewed this thread. As he didn't say to me that anything I had posted was incorrect, I think it was fair of me to presume that my info is on the money.

There was more to the case than just the instance mentioned in the AOPA evidence to the senate inquiry. I don't have the full details of the other sides of it. I only know that all CASA charges were dismissed.

One of the reasons I don't want to start putting details down in that we don't know if the courts had ordered some things stay out of the public domain. I thought it was gutsy of the person who posted a name in here without getting his/her hands on the court decision first.

Walrus