Lecturer let off check-in flip out

[Homer]

A Sydney university lecturer who swore at a Jetstar employee and punched him in the face because she was late for her flight has escaped conviction.

Lecturer let off check-in flip out - Travel - smh.com.au

 

[simongr]

Interesting - once you get past the headline it doesnt seem too unreasonable - probably no more than someone would get in a minor altercation outside an airport?

Not going to restart the debate about JQ enforcing check in times...

 

[moa999]

Mind you trying to check-in 12min before departure I wouldn't even expect a full service airline to issue a boarding pass.

(although sure have had them do it albeit hand luggage only)

 

[trooper]

And if it had been a stressed out check in agent who had punched an unreasonable passenger??

I suspect the tone of comments here would be rather different.... the agent would just have to hope to get the same Magistrate eh?

After all "airports are stressful places for lots of people".... After that ruling - I'd agree...particularly for check in staff who get attacked and then have the legal system declare - in effect - that they are open targets.

Funny how people are always contrite AFTER the Police arrive......

 

[Mal]

There is no excuse for punching the staff member. I can't see provocation (except for a warped view of when you can check into a flight) and being moved out of the terminal.

This is assault, and in other circumstances she would have been dealt a more heavier sentence. At the least she should have had to pay token compensation to the staff member involved and/or been given a suspended sentance/good behaviour type bond.

The cussing, although not really appropriate in the context of someone doing a job, isn't really that much of a big deal. I've heard worse walking down the street

 

[oz_mark]

In the wierd and wondeful way our legal system works, if the staffer wanted compensation, they'd probably be better off going after Jetstar for failing to provide a safe working environment

 

[Skoogle]

I just heard an interview with Jetstar GM or CEO, he indicated that the person will not be permitted to fly on any Qantas group airline.

Also, the person who was punched is an airport staffer, not Jetstar.

 

[Homer]

I just heard an interview with Jetstar GM or CEO, he indicated that the person will not be permitted to fly on any Qantas group airline.

Consigned to DJ...I would not be pleased with that. Still you've got to think that she got off lightly on the judicial side. Here's the other extreme: Whose phone rang? Judge jails 46 - World - smh.com.au

 

[drron]

So if someone is stressed in a Uni lecture it is quite OK to get up and punch the lecturer.

 

[simongr]

BTW - I was in no way condoning the activity in my OP - I was under the impression that in the event of punching someone in the face and being charged with some offence that a custodial sentence was not normally the norm.

Having googled a little it seems the average sentence for basic assault in NSW is about 11 months jail time.

 

[Skoogle]

If it had been a male customer punching a female duty manager, it would have been a different outcome.

 

[ozmerish]

There is no excuse for punching the staff member. I can't see provocation (except for a warped view of when you can check into a flight) and being moved out of the terminal.

This is assault, and in other circumstances she would have been dealt a more heavier sentence. At the least she should have had to pay token compensation to the staff member involved and/or been given a suspended sentance/good behaviour type bond.

The cussing, although not really appropriate in the context of someone doing a job, isn't really that much of a big deal. I've heard worse walking down the street

Head of nail squarely hit.

 

[bambbbam2]

I just heard an interview with Jetstar GM or CEO, he indicated that the person will not be permitted to fly on any Qantas group airline.

And I hope Virgin Blue ban her as well, that's what scum like this deserves.

 

[trooper]

Hope it's true about the ban.....

IMO that is a good, AND appropriate "civil" response...

If the Judiciary is going to treat airport/airline staff as second class citizens (and I can't see the outcome of the case as doing anything else) then it's a nice "OK.. now see what WE can do!" kind of response...

Which naturally enough shows the staff that the COMPANY - if not the LAW - won't tolerate it.

 

[one9]

And I hope Virgin Blue ban her as well, that's what scum like this deserves.

Our democratic legal system does not view the lecturer concerned as scum. Instead in recognised that a good person made a very poor error of judgement.

Sometimes I feel frustrated living in a world with people such as bambbbam2 who have so much hate. It is even worse when those people claim to be of a religion that has a fundamental belief of forgiveness.

Magistrate Gilmour represents the law, of which we must respect. Despite seeing so many "bad" people she can still balance the competing needs of punishment and rehabilitation. We have read a news article, which would likely be written to much dramatise the events, and minimise the reporting of the circumstances of the case. For a section 10 to be given, the person concerned must be of good character. Not just average character. I would guess that the court would have heard of a lot of ways in which the lecturer has contributed to society. I would guess that she is a very generous person and that such action was extremely out of character. I would guess that the magistrate agreed that the lecturer was genuinely extremely sorry and very embarrassed. I would guess that Magistrate Gilmour believed the chances of such an offence reoccurring would be extremely slim. There may have been exceptional circumstances in the lecturers’ private life that are not reported in the article. The lecturer is 42 years old and has no previous trouble with the law.

Secondary students studying psychology will know that positive reinforcement works a lot better than negative reinforcement in most situations. And I am glad that the Magistrate was smart enough to work out that her course of action which included some forgiveness would allow the lecturer concerned to contribute more to society than if she had taken a punishment action.

And mal for your information, whilst no conviction was recorded, she was placed on a section 10 bond whereby if she is not of good behaviour for 12 months, she will be brought back before the court and possibly have the matter re-sentenced more harshly. And with a section 10 bond, it is not possible for the magistrate to fine her. It is only possible to make her pay court costs.

 

[JohnK]

Whilst I do not condone the actions of the lecturer the judgement is not an isolated incident. We constantly hear/read of people brought before the court for assault, and other crimes, with worse records mind you, and they receive suspended sentences, good behaviour bonds, no conviction recorded for various reasons. Why should a university lecturer be treated any differently?

If that was me in the same situation I would certainly hope that the court would be as lenient with me as it would be totally out of character and I have an almost impeccable record. Yes I know it is not right to hit someone but surely someone of good character deserves a second chance for a silly mistake in the heat of the moment. We have all been frustrated at airports anyway even when the situation has been in our favour....

 

[Dave Noble]

BTW - I was in no way condoning the activity in my OP - I was under the impression that in the event of punching someone in the face and being charged with some offence that a custodial sentence was not normally the norm.

Having googled a little it seems the average sentence for basic assault in NSW is about 11 months jail time.

Surely at the point of hitting the person it is the offence of battery which occurs or does not Au law understand the difference between the offence of assault and that of battery

Dave

 

[trooper]

Turning up late for your flight (as the Professor did) is an "error of judgement".

Assaulting another person is not. It is an act of violence.

To resort to violence when the situation that you are in is entirely of your own making, as in this case, is not the sign of a "good person" IMO...

YMMV.. but I wonder if you'd be so forgiving if you were the victim?


I'm mystified that one9 sees "hate" here... and yet, apparently, NOT in the violent actions of the uni professor.

So much sympathy for the violent person... One would suppose you feel the victim of the asssault is not worth equal consideration.

And THAT, sadly, seems to be typical of SOME of our Magistrates.



I am surprised at how irritated I am by this incident, and by the "nerf ball" treatment handed out by the court.

 

[Gazza]

I am no Lawyer but have been through the “process” a couple of time (in my youth).

There are three main categories of charge:

Common Assault – I hit you and it hurts
Assault occasioning bodily hard – I hit you with a piece of timber and break your arm
Assault causing grievous bodily harm – I hit you (a lot) and cause you serious permanent physical impairment

While the persons behaviour was plainly unacceptable we have a system where a magistrate hears far more evidence and goes into greater depth than a news story could ever convey. They then make a balanced decision taking into account various factors and sentence the offender.

The person (IMHO) who has the most moral (as opposed to legal) right to challenge this sentence is the victim. In the story they remain unquoted so presumably they either were not contacted by the reporter (unlikely) or accepted the sentence.

Assaults are actually fairly common and having a conviction for one (or several) does not carry a great social stigma nowadays.

 

[Happy Dude]

Our democratic legal system does not view the lecturer concerned as scum. Instead in recognised that a good person made a very poor error of judgement.

Sometimes I feel frustrated living in a world with people such as bambbbam2 who have so much hate. It is even worse when those people claim to be of a religion that has a fundamental belief of forgiveness.

What, as opposed to a world where respect for others is so minimal that you just biff anyone in your way?

How many other people have been in the same situation as the Lecturer and NOT thumped a poor bloke trying to do his job? Those people are of impeccable character by comparison. The law should recognise that too.