Unfortunately, yes. In CP situations, the primacy is placed with the alleged victim.
This means that because their welfare and rights are protected, it falls on the CFAV to be placed in a kind of “guilty until proved innocent” scenario.
However, while this is designed primarily to ensure the protection of the accuser and other cadets, this should also have the effect of protecting the accused from further allegations, tampering, and other issues that may arise.
In practice, though, we’re really bad as an organisation at dealing with these scenarios. Remember the MP who committed suicide following suspension without knowing why? Well from what I’ve seen we haven’t learnt from that.
It also puts other CFAV in an awkward position - you’re not necessarily banned from contact as long as you don’t discuss the case. But what if you know that procedure isn’t being followed? What if you know the rights that person has? What if that person isn’t getting the support and advice that they should from their nominated assisting officer or WHQ?
Advise your friend and if they are dismissed you open yourself to allegations if you get caught. Question WHQ and you get a blasé copy/paste of what is essentially a brick wall - and possibly open yourself to allegations of defending a suspected whatever.
When what should happen doesn’t happen, or when what is happening seems wrong, it’s incredibly difficult to get it put right whichever position you yourself are in.
It’s bloody difficult to watch unfold.
Not that any of that should be taken as I don’t agree with much of the policy and procedure, but in this (and other aspects of CFAV life) the organisation doesn’t live up to its obligations - self imposed or otherwise - and apply its procedures correctly.