Originally Posted by
Mach E Avelli
Only a sleazebag ambulance chasing lawyer reading this would seriously put forth such an argument. Sadly, the state of our judiciary is so soft, that some judge with no regards for setting dangerous precedent could well accept it.
In my day it was simple. The Captain was in command from the moment he boarded the aircraft until he handed it over at the end of the duty. It followed that Cabin Crew held certain authority because they were delegated by the Captain.
Whatever happened to CDF?
Jeez mach, you’re doing a bit of messenger execution there. I merely quoted what a couple of the rules say and pondered the consequences of them meaning what they say if they were what the CC were relying on as the source of their authority. I didn’t write those rules.
Even ‘in your day’ there was – and remains to this day - the quaint concept that subjecting a person to physically injurious contact – like tasering them – then manhandling them and depriving them of liberty were crimes, unless conducted with lawful authority and reasonable force. Even the toughest of tough judges won’t accept “CDF” as the lawful authority excusing what would otherwise be crimes. (Though I do note that, back in the ‘good ol days’ of police engaging in the sport of ‘poofter bashing’, the poofters were asking for it. It was CDF, wasn’t it.)
I don’t know the basis upon which the police decided they had authority to do what they did to old mate. For all I know, the crew decided that he was no longer permitted to be on board and was therefore trespassing as soon as he was informed of that then failed to leave the aircraft when asked to do so. Arresting someone for trespass is not the same as arresting them for failing to comply with safety directions or safety instructions under the CASRs I quoted. And I don’t know the specifics of the ‘turfings off’ to which Lookleft referred.
All I can say is that if the only basis upon which the police intervened was old mate’s failure to comply with a safety direction under CASR 91.575 or a safety instruction under CASR 91.580, the durr-obvious starting point for anyone defending him will be to 'read' those provisions. And when those provisions are read, there is a durr-obvious limitation as to when a direction or instruction binding under the provisions may be given. As I say: I didn’t write them. And I did ask whether I’d missed anything obvious.