Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
I agree entirely with all your practical arguments and conclusion.
(I'd only note that in order to be found guilty of resisting arrest, you have to have been the subject of a lawful arrest. For what alleged crime was old mate being arrested? That's why the substance of the safety issue becomes important if the crime is a failure to comply with a direction under one of the CASRs quoted above, all of which have a safety element. The definition of a CC is someone given duties to perform "in the interests of the safety of an aircraft’s passengers".)
True - that part of it presumably involves the operator's lawful refusal to carry a passenger. Was it lawful? The airline could probably argue that any refusal to comply with a cabin crew direction pre-flight makes the passenger a safety risk, so unfit for carriage. The passenger could probably also argue that it wasn't a safety direction that he was non-compliant with, and so long as he could sit next to his wife and child, he was a perfectly calm passenger and fit to fly.
However, once the passenger was directed by the crew to disembark and refused, it's the job of law-enforcement to enforce the removal of the passenger, and if necessary force is required, then so be it. If he had disembarked when directed by the AFP, probably no charges would have been made. His refusal at this point was a mistake - he wasn't refusing a crew direction any longer, he was refusing a police order. He was then placed under arrest and resisted arrest. As to the use of a taser against an unarmed man in the process - that is obviously a police matter and nothing to do with Jetstar. Not good
PR though. Remember that doctor in the USA who was dragged off a jet with a bloody face a few years ago?
It's just a pity it got to that point.