[Peetwo]

E is for?? Part III: Delegate or delegate -

Under Appendix 3 paragraph 3.4 of the CASA Enforcement Manual (version 4.4 January 2016) it states:

..A delegate who is entrusted with a discretion must determine the matter for himself or herself and not merely adopt or rubber stamp a decision made by someone else...

 Now in the 8 year DJ CASA embuggerance case I would query whether the former CASA delegate/decision-maker Greg Hood has in fact 'rubber stamped' his 27 March 2012 'notice of variation/notice of revocation'...

...to reflect in whole the 'Standard Form Recommendation' from one Wodger Chambers (reference FOI 4):

---

---

---

---

P2 comments:

1) Note that Hoody has straight up copied & pasted part b) of the RC SFR 'Available Options' to his 27 March 2012 notice to DJ.
2) Note that on page 4 next to 'Implications of taking recommended actions', Hoody has annotated 'Sydney to prepare'; and on page 1 Hoody has annotated - 'Roger will you be preparing a brief for DAS and Corporate'. This would appear to indicate that Hoody has 'rubber stamped'/delegated to Wodger to articulate the 'reasons for the decision' in a brief to the DAS, Corporate and therefore by association the Minister.

Besides appearing to be a COI by delegating this responsibility to a CASA Officer who was directly implicated in prosecuting an enforcement action against DJ; this also seems to conflict with part 3.6 to 3.8 of Appendix 3 of the Enforcement manual:

..Since that is the underlying purpose to the obligation to give reasons, any such statement of reasons should set out the decision-maker’s understanding of the relevant law, any findings of fact on which his or her conclusions depend and the reasoning process which led him or her to those conclusions. This must be done in clear and unambiguous language, not in vague generalities or the formal language of legislation. In particular, the decision-maker is under a clear obligation to explain his/her decisions in terms which can be understood by the persons affected by the decision (see Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v. Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 at 507; Commonwealth of Australia v. Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65 at 67).

Given the potential for any statement of reasons to be used in litigation, a statement of reasons should generally not be issued without first discussing it with Legal Services. 

 
3) I note that it was agreed that the conditions on DJ's ATPL would not be recorded on his FCL (reference top of page 3 of Chambers SFR). however apparently they have since reneged on that part of the CEP agreement:

       
  
MTF...P2