Homeless man fined $3250 over plane bomb 'joke'



A homeless Melbourne man has been fined more than $3000 for suggesting to a plane crew he had bombs and weapons in his hand luggage.

Jason Brown was on his way from Melbourne to be reunited with his family in Western Australia when he was taken off a Virgin Blue flight on Monday night after boarding in Adelaide for the final leg of his journey.

Prosecutor Anna Brebner told the Adelaide Magistrates Court on Tuesday that when the 39-year-old boarded the plane the cabin crew noticed some unusual behaviour.

Advertisement: Story continues below
She said that when Brown was asked to put his shoulder bag under the seat rather than on the seat next to him he responded by saying, "leave it there, maybe it's got weapons and bombs in it".

Ms Brebner said Brown was then told he would be removed from the plane in line with airline policies with his comments regarded as a threat to the aircraft.

The prosecutor said there were 125 passengers on board at the time and the offending was serious given the community's sensitivity to threats of terrorist activity.

Duty solicitor Stephen Law said Brown, who suffers from schizophrenia, had lived in Melbourne for seven years but had been homeless for the past 12 months after losing his job.

Brown had saved up money from a disability pension to afford the flight to Perth to be reunited with his parents.

Mr Law said his client's comments were made as a joke but he now appreciated that it was the type of joke that should never be told.

Magistrate Joseph Baldino told Brown his assertions might have been empty threats as there were no bombs or weapons in the bag.

But he said the authorities were well within their rights to take the comments seriously.

Mr Baldino said the offending would have created alarm and fear in the minds of the passengers who also had their travel delayed.

"This is not a trivial offence by any stretch of the imagination," he said.

The magistrate imposed a $3250 fine and also ordered Brown to pay court and prosecution costs.



http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/homeless-man-fined-3250-over-plane-bomb...


Is financial punishment skewed in favour of the rich.

For example


D.S.P $330 wk
Average Weekly Wage $1400 wk
Ultra rich Weekly income ... ?

A $3000 plus fine inflicts more pain onto a low income earner. How is this fair, or is court only for punishing low income earners.

Surely fines should be scaling to take income into the equal to level the playing field.

Agree?

mavisdavis wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 7:59pm:


Sure, no argument there. Yet the system is set up to favour the rich over the poor.

How long would it take to pay off a $3000 plus fine when someone is homeless and on about $330 a week.

Compared to someone who could pay the same fine, for the same charge, out of loose change. Where is the punishment for the financially well off person.

salad in wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:



I am not saying he can or can't afford the fine, I am using him as an example.

The fine is same, if it is a homeless pensioner or the richest person around. How is this level justice. It is skewed to punish low income earners harder and that isn't fair.

____ wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Feb 16^th, 2011 at 8:51pm:


and if he has NO income???

I am as a disabled person taking the Government to the High court of Australia to refuse and fight the carbon tax - please support my fight when you hear about this and remember me in your prayers.  We're not gonna take it!

<<On being found "guilty", I've always believed a magistrate should issue a fine of X percentage of the annual income of the defendant






and if he has NO income??? >>


You mean like buzz?

Q Can A Homeless Pensioner Afford A $3250 Fine

A No but an illegal immigrant can afford to travel Xmas Is - Sydney for free

... wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 11:58am:


65,000 to be exact when working on 5c a tin.

Anyone who states this to an airline deserves to be fined the full amount.

I don't care if they earn $10 per year or $10,000,000 per year.

An idiot is an idiot, no matter what he earns or where he lives.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:15pm:


The Homeless have no greater entities to fear than the Government Beauracracies and corporations all seeking to financially benefit from the exploitation of the poor, when they are not actually exterminating them.

The Government is responsible for these people being homeless - its their fault.

Forced labour and reeducation of the Homeless constitutes clear breech opf the Nuremberg Principles.

http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive09?link=/362/192362.xml&styl...

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:43pm:


Oh really and dont you think the Homeless have some choice as to whether or not they will comply with their persecutors?

Avail yourself of the Nuremberg Principles which clearly outlines the obligations of the state under international law.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:56pm:


Then the state must compensate them for their crimes against them.

But of course you don't want to actually hear that the state actually owes anybody anything for its actions and policies do you?  Competition policy is fair game eh? except when its on the other foot.

Prevailing wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 3:08pm:


And the state will compensate them for any crimes proven against them in a court of law.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Feb 17^th, 2011 at 2:13pm: