Aggro passengers get free flight to jail

[Mal]

Aggro passengers get free flight to jail | The Daily Telegraph

ABUSIVE passengers who attack airline hostesses will face tough, new 10-year jail sentences.

The Federal laws, to start on March 30, were sparked after the industry raised concerns about staff being attacked by drunk and rowdy passengers.

Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor said the laws were among a number of strengthened aviation penalties. "With these ... tougher penalties we're creating safer skies for the travelling public and those who work in the aviation industry," Mr O'Connor said.

Now will the new laws help? Or will they just feed into ego arrests that (perhaps) happen at times?

 

[tuapekastar]

From the article: "ABUSIVE passengers who attack airline hostesses will face tough, new 10-year jail sentences".

So male FAs are still fair game? :shock:

 

[drewbles]

From the article: "ABUSIVE passengers who attack airline hostesses will face tough, new 10-year jail sentences".

So male FAs are still fair game? :shock:

One may argue the femininity of the male FA makes them female-esque in some circumstances

(it's like the old joke of a man refusing to put his tray table up saying to the male FA "DYKWIA?!?! I'm the Prince of Uzbutustahn!" to be met with a response of "Well sir, I'm a queen, and I don't know about where you come from, but where i'm from a Queen overrules a Prince, so put the tray table up sweetheart!' and those that know me know this post is tongue in cheek!)

 

[opusman]

So male FAs are still fair game? :shock:

On for young and old!

 

[casanovawa]

10 years is BS and over the top, you often get less for manslaughter!

But knobs that cause serious disturbance on planes should get hefty fines up to and including jail time for serious offences against staff or other passengers and airline bans implemented... but if its going to be some cough where the rich, famous and powerful get off scott free and its the nobodies that get slammed they can shove it!

 

[anat0l]

10 years is BS and over the top, you often get less for manslaughter!

Just because manslaughter doesn't carry a high enough sentence is no measure that 10 years is over the top for these offences. Dealing with an appropriate sentence for manslaughter is another argument.

In any case, some jail time is definitely preferable for such crimes.

...if its going to be some cough where the rich, famous and powerful get off scott free and its the nobodies that get slammed they can shove it!

Doesn't this happen almost all the time irrespective of the crime? I mean, we've seen politicians, police commissioners, high court judges and so on commit crimes like drink driving, driving causing damage or harm, dogs mauling innocent people, perjury and even crimes and misdemeanours on aircraft, yet all of them have faced either no penalty or fairly small penalty compared to normal civilians?

Trying to make crimes irrespective of who is charged requires a far more radical, blanket strategy that is currently unfathomable by the human society who accepts the current system of law we have.


In any case, I suppose since the aircraft environment can "alter" ones perceptions etc., most will try and argue the "out of character" or "insanity" defence. You certainly hear this BS all the time, e.g. "The defendant is a father of two young children, his wife is disabled, he is well respected in his community, never had a mark against his name....these actions were due to stress and definitely not normal for him...." you get the idea.

 

[casanovawa]

The manslaughter penalties may need to go up, but 10 years is still OTT IMHO... Here in WA, not sure about elsewhere, i think we now have a mandatory 1 year prison sentence for assaulting a public official such as ambo, policeman or train guard... Again this may not be high enough either...

And again, if airlines won't vigorously pursue it against everyone without fear or favour (like that tosser judge on whatever talent show it was recently) then leave it be... when they adequately police and enforce the powers they currently have i'll be more interested in them getting all gungh ho and heavy handed... Alternatively i would be more than happy for a knob to get thoroughly thumped/thrashed by those around them if they are seriously looking to cause some trouble...

 

[Anna]

high court judges and so on commit crimes like drink driving, driving causing damage or harm, dogs mauling innocent people, perjury and even crimes and misdemeanours on aircraft, yet all of them have faced either no penalty or fairly small penalty compared to normal civilians?

This comment regarding High Court judges is untrue and is defamatory. I suggest this post should be edited.

 

[oz_mark]

Just because manslaughter doesn't carry a high enough sentence is no measure that 10 years is over the top for these offences. Dealing with an appropriate sentence for manslaughter is another argument.

An important thing is that the quoted 10 years, is actually a maximum sentence. I dare say that anyone convicted of these offences may end up with a lesser sentence. For what it is worth, the proposed changes are (Brendan O'Connor MHR - Tougher penalties for aviation threats)

Under the proposal, maximum penalties for aviation-related crimes will increase and such crimes will fall within four categories:
· 10 years jail for hoax offences such as calling an airline and saying a bomb is on a plane or threatening to bomb an airport, which currently carries a two year maximum jail term.
· 14 years jail for offences against aircraft or aviation environments, such as damaging a runway or air traffic control facilities at a major airport, which currently carries maximum jail terms of seven or ten years.
· 20 years jail for very serious offences that pose danger or cause harm to groups of people, such as assaulting a pilot or endangering an aircraft while in flight. These offences currently carry maximum jail terms of seven, 14 or 15 years.
· Life in jail would continue to apply to offences such as hijacking or destroying an aircraft and being reckless as to causing death. The increase in penalties will provide greater consistency with other criminal legislation. Mr O’Connor is also proposing three new offences:
· Assault of an aircraft crew member - a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment
· Reckless endangerment of an aircraft, where danger of serious harm or death can be shown - a maximum penalty of 14 years
· Having dangerous goods onboard an aircraft, where there is a risk of serious harm or death - a maximum penalty of 14 years.

 

[UP4014]

Anna, OK, Federal Court and Supreme Court of NSW.

 

[djfuzz]

This comment regarding High Court judges is untrue and is defamatory. I suggest this post should be edited.

Which High Court judge was being defamed? Untrue, yes, but I wasn't aware you could defame a whole class of people or an institution.

 

[Anna]

I wasn't aware you could defame a whole class of people

You might want to brush up on Bjelke-Petersen v Warburton then. [1987] 2 QdR 465.

 

[serfty]

...
Doesn't this happen almost all the time irrespective of the crime? I mean, we've seen politicians, police commissioners, high court judges and so on commit crimes like drink driving, driving causing damage or harm, dogs mauling innocent people, perjury and even crimes and misdemeanours on aircraft, yet all of them have faced either no penalty or fairly small penalty compared to normal civilians? ...

That's much of a generalisation and is simply not true.

e.g. Marcus Enfield

Marcus Einfeld jailed for perjury

Marcus Einfeld begins two-year jail term | The Daily Telegraph

Marcus Einfeld's fall from grace

Released Einfeld expresses relief | News.com.au

 

[casanovawa]

If you can defame a whole group of people, the next time someone disses public servants 'general' work ethic, pampered conditions etc, etc i'm going for a large payout for damage to reputation and emotional distress!!!

 

[UP4014]

You can defame say, Coke a Cola, but the pay out is to the entity not the individuals inside the entity.

 

[Anna]

If you can defame a whole group of people, the next time someone disses public servants 'general' work ethic, pampered conditions etc, etc i'm going for a large payout for damage to reputation and emotional distress!!!

The law on defaming a group depends on the size of the group. "Public servants" would be too large a group. Happy to enter into PM debate about the group-size issue with any other lawyers who are interested in discussing it.

You can defame say, Coke a Cola, but the pay out is to the entity not the individuals inside the entity.

This comment is not relevant to the issue of defaming High Court justices as they would be entitled to sue as individuals.

 

[casanovawa]

I guess that whole size matters thing is why the lawyer fraternity themselves haven't taken everyone to the cleaners for the generally less than effusively positive comments made about that particular profession...

 

[ksthommo]

Drunk Dutchman jailed for 16 months in Singapore for bomb threat and
kicking an attendant
.
No stuffing around there.

Drunk passenger jailed 16 months for bomb threat

 

[casanovawa]

Yes, one of the dumber places to try that sort of stunt on...

Probably lucky he didn't get a bit of rotanning as well....

 

[harvyk]

You might want to brush up on Bjelke-Petersen v Warburton then. [1987] 2 QdR 465.

From what I've read about Bjelke-Petersen v Warburton my understanding is Warburton made a direct comment about the cabinet, which at the time contained very few ministers, thus it could have been considered an attack on the individuals.

The simple case could be argued that anat0l did not specify Australian high court judges, nor did he specify current high court judges. I'm sure that you could find corrupt judges which serve in their respective countries high court. He also included the high court judges remark in with a collection of other professions which should be held to high moral standards and yet has been proven on a world wide scale over many years that they can also be corrupted.

Back onto the original article, whilst I have no problem with longer jail terms for those whom threaten FA's, it does kinda reflect the current levels of hystaria to anything aviation related, and coupled with airfares which allow the less affluent of society to fly it is no wonder that these sorts of laws have been brought in.