Accused Pilot
Absolute discretion - I’ll expand. The head of security who has sign off on all group ASIC may withhold or withdraw an ASIC based on evidence indicating the applicant or holder is not suitable, including hearsay or evidence that is otherwise not admissible in a Court. If an allegation is made against an employee and the boss believes it, ASIC can be withdrawn and no right of appeal.
Nowhere near as cut and dried as "sociopaths are made and psychopaths are born". There's been plenty of work done that suggests hereditary links for antisocial personality disorder (sociopathy), just as there's been work done on the impact of environmental factors in psychopathy.
A specific case I was involved in quite a number of years ago, involved someone who had been charged and convicted of a crime but it was later determined their were some unusual circumstances - meaning that the fact of the criminal record was not, legally, a bar to holding an ASIC (it wasn't Qantas, but another major Australian airline) and the security department advised they did not want to issue an ASIC in any case. I was told at the time that they had to discretion to do so. One of them, an ex Police Officer, told me that the person would be working on what effectively would be the company's property and the company has even a common law right to refuse entry to anyone it sees fit but more specifically in this case, they just didn't want someone who had ANY sort of criminal record.
(Not DFAT. Home Affairs. Used to be Transport, Cities, Communications X, Y, Q in its various names over the years.)
You can't deny an ASIC for other than the prescribed reasons, you can however have a work protocol that prohibits anyone with a criminal record. They are two different things. If someone is barred from an ASIC for improper reasons you can ask for a review and then take it to the AAT, this is all written in the transport security act so no company or individual can over-ride that.
Take it as a fact that the Head of Security can withhold the issue of an ASIC without having to give reasons and there is no appeal process.
43”, two people who know the facts have tried to tell you the truth about the powers of the QF Group Head of Security. They are totally correct in what they have said and they can’t elaborate further for legal reasons.
Take it as a fact that the Head of Security can withhold the issue of an ASIC without having to give reasons and there is no appeal process.
Take it as a fact that the Head of Security can withhold the issue of an ASIC without having to give reasons and there is no appeal process.
Going Boeing, 43 et al….
You're both correct.
The Qantas Head of Security can deny the issuing of a Qantas ASIC without having to define a reason. He/She cannot stop an applicant endeavouring to obtain an ASIC elsewhere (such as AviationID Australia) but that ASIC will not be able to be used to access the secure area of any Qantas property.
You're both correct.
The Qantas Head of Security can deny the issuing of a Qantas ASIC without having to define a reason. He/She cannot stop an applicant endeavouring to obtain an ASIC elsewhere (such as AviationID Australia) but that ASIC will not be able to be used to access the secure area of any Qantas property.
The Qantas Head of Security can deny the issuing of a Qantas ASIC without having to define a reason. He/She cannot stop an applicant endeavouring to obtain an ASIC elsewhere (such as AviationID Australia) but that ASIC will not be able to be used to access the secure area of any Qantas property.
It does sound whatever case happened there was either sound reasoning for the refusal, or, very poor legal representation. In any case a letter to the secretary of home affairs for review is the course of action should an ASIC be denied or cancelled, if he then refuses the issuance, it progresses to the AAT. If that procedure has not been followed a court wont be interested, and I don't think will get involved in any way as there is a prescribed procedure. Much like how workplace issues are resolved.
Last edited by 43Inches; 29th Nov 2021 at 07:39.
Technically we should not be talking about him at all, given he's now charged with murder and there is an ongoing investigation and upcoming trial most likely. The ASIC discussion and medical stuff were loosely related but not directly of interest to the case, anything more closely related should be discussed with the police and left from public view until the case and trial concluded.
Sub Judice applies to any publication of material that could bias a juror. Publication is inferred by making any information 'publicly available', so posting on this site is considered publication of information.
Comments that infer past tendencies, work habits, aggression and similar that draw a picture of the person would be considered contempt of court. The site even warns that it may be frequented by the press who could promulgate such information and make it viewable to a potential juror. There are strict guidelines that apply to reporting on a case once the suspect is charged until the verdict delivered and possibly further if appeal is probable.
Comments that infer past tendencies, work habits, aggression and similar that draw a picture of the person would be considered contempt of court. The site even warns that it may be frequented by the press who could promulgate such information and make it viewable to a potential juror. There are strict guidelines that apply to reporting on a case once the suspect is charged until the verdict delivered and possibly further if appeal is probable.
The following users liked this post:
I take it this is just your personal theory and not some inside info that you have access to? The media were showing security camera footage of him greeting his neighbours last Sunday, certainly didn't look like a man who was going to run off to commit suicide the next day, unless this confrontation with his wife is supposed to have happened afterwards.
The following users liked this post:
Some quotes from this site have been used in media articles. Expect some of these quotes to be now used in court. Which is why the company has advised the team to say nothing. They are trying to keep its distance from the whole thing and avoid it becoming a ongoing workplace distraction. Those who have a gripe against colleagues/people and wish to pursue them or ‘shoot them while they are down’ etc, due to whatever reason, then that’s a matter for you, not the employer, but read up on court processes and see if the ego gain is worth it all, as you will likely be dragged into the process to provide/speak.