Warning Will Robinson.
This is a ‘point of view’ case though, ain’t it. The Federal Court ‘blurb’ – HERE - makes for interesting reading.
You can see the prosecution argument, it’s the Maintenance Release (MR) which has done the damage. Both sides of the argument ’stack up’ until you wonder why the MR was needed; or thought to be needed. Interesting argument from both sides; but, the court ruled, the fine and costs were imposed along with a ‘criminal’ record. Crime, punishment and an impartial judgement all part of the system, which, cynicism aside, works for the most part in a not perfect world. Mind you, many will argue that without ‘strict liability’ it could have been a lot more difficult for CASA to prove the case; there is also enough evidence of the ‘inspectorate’ not playing by the rules to create reasonable doubt in anyone’s mind. It matters not, the die is cast.
The ‘Egon’ element is interesting; I reckon he is one of the ‘converted’,finally realising that the antics of CASA in the AAAT are risible and that the Mickey was being taken out of what should be a ‘fair’ system, in short, he is reluctant to be convinced by CASA ‘evidence’. Rightly so; and, he may well be out of favour for daring to slap CASA back into it’s box. But, I don’t think that is the reason for - “62. There will be an order that any rehearing proceed before a differently constituted Tribunal.” It will be Egon's ruling which is being appealed, so it only makes sense that someone else should ‘judge’ that.
The real worry, IMO, is that CASA were not satisfied with the conviction, but wanted his (Bellamy) licence as well. Is this to become the ultimate goal? CASA proved their case with the MR, the guy has copped a fine and a record for the crime he was charged with; so why persist with taking away his pilot licence? One crime, one punishment – fair enough; but to persist and extract a second punishment, that seems unreasonable to me.
As said, point of view case this one. I can see where the Fyce ruling may be challenged at law, but it seems to have more to do with unchallenged authority than ‘justice’. Dunno – but read the case through before rushing to conclusion. It’s time well spent – if you want to see how CASA legal operates and where the changes to the regulations need to be made..
Right then, back to my knitting. T-T.
This is a ‘point of view’ case though, ain’t it. The Federal Court ‘blurb’ – HERE - makes for interesting reading.
You can see the prosecution argument, it’s the Maintenance Release (MR) which has done the damage. Both sides of the argument ’stack up’ until you wonder why the MR was needed; or thought to be needed. Interesting argument from both sides; but, the court ruled, the fine and costs were imposed along with a ‘criminal’ record. Crime, punishment and an impartial judgement all part of the system, which, cynicism aside, works for the most part in a not perfect world. Mind you, many will argue that without ‘strict liability’ it could have been a lot more difficult for CASA to prove the case; there is also enough evidence of the ‘inspectorate’ not playing by the rules to create reasonable doubt in anyone’s mind. It matters not, the die is cast.
The ‘Egon’ element is interesting; I reckon he is one of the ‘converted’,finally realising that the antics of CASA in the AAAT are risible and that the Mickey was being taken out of what should be a ‘fair’ system, in short, he is reluctant to be convinced by CASA ‘evidence’. Rightly so; and, he may well be out of favour for daring to slap CASA back into it’s box. But, I don’t think that is the reason for - “62. There will be an order that any rehearing proceed before a differently constituted Tribunal.” It will be Egon's ruling which is being appealed, so it only makes sense that someone else should ‘judge’ that.
The real worry, IMO, is that CASA were not satisfied with the conviction, but wanted his (Bellamy) licence as well. Is this to become the ultimate goal? CASA proved their case with the MR, the guy has copped a fine and a record for the crime he was charged with; so why persist with taking away his pilot licence? One crime, one punishment – fair enough; but to persist and extract a second punishment, that seems unreasonable to me.
As said, point of view case this one. I can see where the Fyce ruling may be challenged at law, but it seems to have more to do with unchallenged authority than ‘justice’. Dunno – but read the case through before rushing to conclusion. It’s time well spent – if you want to see how CASA legal operates and where the changes to the regulations need to be made..
Right then, back to my knitting. T-T.