Thanks for explaining, Owls.
Yes, obviously you have to work with the system you have. I can see the point of banning campaigning for a petitioner, obviously that could have all sorts of undesirable consequences. But unfortunately, in this particular case, the ban on explaining looks like it has resulted in an injustice. If I had seen an application which admitted to a fraud charge, and if I wasn't allowed to hear the explanation that it had turned out not to be his fault, then in a spirit of caution I'd likely have voted no in the ballot, even in the face of a favourable recommendation by the committee. And it'd be unfair on the investigators too, because if they weren't allowed to explain why they had reported favourably, I might have been left wondering what the heck they were up to, wondering if maybe they'd gone soft on crime, wondering if they'd done their job properly, wondering if they could be trusted with future investigations.
But I'm sure no other system is perfect either, so I guess we have to live with occasional unfair results.
T & F,
Huw