For all those who keep banging on about the “lawful orders” of CC and that someone commits a Federal offence “the second” the person fails to do what they’re told by CC, no matter the circumstances, old mate wasn’t convicted and fined for failure to comply with CC directions. That charge was dropped. For a reason.

Just sayin’.

Most airlines will (should) have a process that has to be followed with a disruptive passenger. If it's not followed then the passenger can wriggle out of the "failure to follow crew instructions" quite easily if not given sufficient chance in the situation to correct their action, ie enough warnings. Once the passenger is arrested, then regardless of what happened they have to comply otherwise having the additional charge of resisting added which will not be related to the original offence if any, and if you want to wrestle with authorities in your spare time, well you will probably get more spare time as a result.

It was probably part of the Guilty plea bargain! Just sayin’.

But if failure to comply with the CC’s direction was so obvious an offence and such a serious safety issue, why would the prosecutor care whether old mate was inclined to bargain about the charge for that offence? Denial and forcing a prosecution for the charge would have dug old mate an even deeper hole, if the offence were so obvious with such serious consequences. Why did the prosecution drop that charge? Just askin’.

Bush lawyer arguing with a qualified lawyer, just pullin'

Maybe you can hire the real one to finally deliver that lawsuit you so impotently threatened me with :E

I can't imagine there was any sort of plea bargaining, other than the advice from his own lawyer that he plead guilty or face tougher penalties. 100+ witnesses, recordings and a wrestling match with the plod, he's not got much to bargain with as they have everything they need to prosecute. It's not as though he would be able to 'rat' out another possible trouble making passenger as a chip, maybe he told where the in flight cookie was buried, or are they becoming organised, should they send him out with a wire?

No need to imagine. Just do 5 minutes of research.

Among the dropped charges was the allegation that he failed to comply with CC direction.

At the risk of thread drift, I am surprised that no one has commented on last Friday’s Virgin flight from Brisbane to Bali that diverted to Darwin. It is ‘alleged’ (love that mealy mouthed word) that three morons seated in an emergency exit row got stuck into their duty free. Asked to move (safety grounds, obviously), became disruptive, but eventually did move. Continued on the grog and one is ‘alleged’ to have vaped.
Cops in DRW carted them away, but released them from custody, pending probable fines, no mention of jail. Apparently the maximum fine is $9000, but if they are lucky to get the magistrate who dealt with a similar case on Air Asia a couple of weeks ago, they will only be fined $500. Then, if we are to believe the report of that incident, they were permitted to board the next Air Asia flight to Bali. Unbelievable.
Oh, for CC to be issued with cattle prods…

I wouldn't 'threaten' you with a lawsuit cobba ;)​​​​​​​

Right or wrong, at least come with a legitimate argument. You were just spouting bigotry.

PS no one has yet provided any proof that JQ require you to sit in your allocated seat, direct you in any way to sit in your allocated seat, or that moving seats is a massive safety infringement....all arguments trotted out to support the CC directions (before the actual facts were known I might add). Ultimately it seems that those directions may in fact be unenforceable, as shown by them being dropped....can't be such a safety issue after all.

If I were CC on an Australian aircraft, I’d be asking my employer to answer, or be writing to CASA’s Guidance Centre asking for an answer to, the following questions:

When does a flight begin and end for the purposes of CASR 91.580, noting the words “during a flight” in that regulation put a limit on when instructions I give can result in an offence under CASR 91.580 if not complied with by passengers?

Noting the words “relating to safety” in CASR 91.580, does a failure by a passenger to sit in their assigned seat on instruction by me - assume “during a flight” - an offence by the passenger under CASR 91.580, if there is no objective safety risk to the aircraft, in terms of weight and balance and other airworthiness and operational issues, and no objective safety risk to other passengers, arising from the behaviour and demeanour and other relevant factors including the age and gender of the passenger compared with those in neighbouring seats, of the passenger remaining in the unassigned seat (assuming the unassigned seat has a seat belt and is otherwise serviceable)?

Does a failure by a passenger to comply with an instruction I give - assume “during a flight” - merely to test whether the passenger will obey orders, of itself constitute an offence by the passenger under CASR 91.580?

What powers or authorities do I have in relation to passengers, other than to give instructions under CASR 91.580? For example, am I a delegate of the pilot in command’s powers and authorities and, if yes, how does that happen?

I realise there are factual complexities in the specific circumstances the subject of this thread and I realise there are all sorts of other powers and authorities that various people may have, depending on the circumstances, some based in law and some based in folklore. Please set all that extra complexity aside and focus on basics.

I suspect that the theory that passengers “commit a Federal offence the second they fail to comply with cabin crew directions” has its source in the aviation regulations. The CASR that makes it an offence for passengers to fail to comply with CC instructions is 91.580.

But there are limits in that CASR as to the “when” and the “what” of those directions. If I were CC, I’d want to make sure I understood the “when” and the “what”, because directions at other times or of other kinds don’t count under 91.580.

Old mate the subject of this thread plainly failed to comply with CC instructions. The offence in CASR 91.580 is a strict liability offence. The penalty applicable at the time of the failure was close to $15,000. (It’s even higher, now.) Shooting fish in a barrel for the prosecution, surely?

What are the experts’ opinions on why the charge for failure to comply with CC instructions was dropped? My amateur guess - uninformed by any first or second hand knowledge of the subjective reasons of whoever decided to drop the charge - is that the instructions in question were not given “during a flight”.

There’s a definition of “flight” in the Civil Aviation Act, and if that’s what flight means in CASR 91.580 I don’t see how anything that happens while, for example, an aircraft is sitting at gate and yet to be pushed back can be described as having happened “during a flight”.

To understand what I’m trying to say, compare, for example, CASR 91.525 (underlining added):

The words “on an aircraft for a flight” are not the same as “during a flight”. The former seem to me to extend beyond the duration of the flight itself and could even apply if no flight eventuates - some ruckus during boarding and, as a consequence of the delay caused by dealing with and the aftermath of the ruckus, the crew run out of hours / curfew problems or whatever, and the planned flight is cancelled. But that’s just my amateur view.