I am not a lawyer. I'm just some guy.

Protection of the public was an ad hoc argument during the appeal, and was rejected as such, but also rejected as a fishing expedition and "such approach is unacceptable". Even though it was rejected (not ruled on) therefore could be used in a new complaint, it stands under the tweet by Noakes, and this tweet has been addressed correctly at length. This means that for a new complaint with this ad hoc argument to be valid, it must first show the nature of that tweet to be different this time around. In my opinion, at this point it's quite impossible to do this since the tweet has been ruled on twice already.

Your assault/reckless driving analogy is slightlly different in that the original claim is misdirected. In Noakes' case, the original claim was correct and was correctly ruled on, but then an additional claim was attempted during the appeal, and for this new claim to be valid the same event must be seen differently, but can't because the correct claim about this event was correctly ruled on - the event was correctly seen for what it was. Also in Noakes' case, the new claim is related to the original claim (manifests from it as a potential consequence), it's not different, so it's unlikely a ruling on this new claim would be any different. For your reckless driving analogy, this would be like ruling not guilty of reckless driving, then arguing that reckless driving could endanger the public and making that a claim on its own. If you're not guilty of reckless driving, you couldn't possibly be guilty of endangering the public as a consequence of being not guilty of reckless driving. See?

On the flip side, in Marika's article, it says that new evidence was discovered. Tweets between Strydom and the HPCSA. The content of which clearly indicates intent to silence Noakes, and a tweet by Noakes was found to do this. This new evidence was not presented (or at least not considered, if it was indeed presented) during the appeal. Not sure if it was presented during the original hearings. Anyways, that stuff is ammo for Noakes, if he decides to sue Strydom and the HPCSA and the ADSA and whoever else financed the whole mess. I mean, he could, but somehow I don't think he wants to do that.