A visitor twice threatened to collapse his trip while he was in the airport waiting for his flight in Singapore because of their disrupted vacation plans.
Moncrieff Marli Curtis Philip, a 36-year-old Australian, was jailed for eight weeks on Wednesday ( Jan 15 ) after pleading guilty to one count of criminal intimidation.
A second related demand was considered in punishment.
The jury heard that somewhere before Nov 20, 2024, Moncrieff took a Jetstar journey from Perth to Phuket, stopping over in Singapore.
According to the attorney, Moncrieff had been making plans for this getaway for some time, and it cost him a lot of money.
Nevertheless, he was denied admittance in Phuket as a section of visa was torn out of his card. He was taken on a trip to Singapore, but for the same purpose, he was denied entry there as well.
Immigration officials helped Moncrieff fetch his prescription drugs for anxiety and depression from his checked-in bag at Changi Airport.
He was therefore transported to a holding area at the boarding gate to await Jetstar’s return journey JQ96 to Perth.
On November 20, 2024, Moncrieff was the first customer to board the plane and was being escorted to the journey at around 5:30 am.
Upset at how his vacation plans had turned out, he made a menace, saying:” I want the airplane to fall and kill somebody”.
A trip assistant was alarmed when he said this after hearing it. She and the captain consulted with her professionals before deciding to take Moncrieff off the plane.
Moncrieff and his belongings were searched, but they were unsuccessful in finding something to incriminate.
They then handed him over to local officials, who brought him to Jetstar’s appearance shop to wait for another relocation flight at the firm’s price.
While waiting, Moncrieff was talking to his partner when he said:” If they put me on another flight, I will tell them I will crash the airplane again”.
An immigration and checkpoints authority ( ICA ) official overheard these words.
Moncrieff was agitated when he said this, although he did not raise his voice or apply epithets, the prosecutor said.
The ICA agent inquired about Moncrieff’s statements in order to ensure them because of the seriousness of what she had heard. He repeated the danger.
The ICA official tried to calm him over, but he continued to be unhappy and demanded that he be imprisoned while claiming that he wanted to die.
After talking with her coworkers about the situation, the officer made a police record, and Moncrieff was afterwards detained that day.
” MERE WORDS CAN HAVE SERIOUS Implications”
Deputy Public Prosecutor Shaun Lim asked for eight to 12 weeks ‘ prison.
Mr. Lim emphasized the damaging effects of the case on Singapore’s status as an air gateway as well as the anxiety that Moncrieff’s notes caused.
He argued that the environment of Moncrieff’s dangers, which were made in an aircraft, warranted a considerable prison term for punishment.
Moncrieff was represented by doctors from Pro Bono SG’s Ad Hoc Pro Bono Scheme, who sought one to two months ‘ prison.
Moncrieff apologized to the prosecutor for his actions at a previous reading after being informed that his claims had been upgraded at the start of his prevention.
” I simply apologize for how I handled my demeanor,” I said. I understand you are in the highest seat in the court, he told Principal District Judge Toh Han Li.
Under the Protection from Harassment Act, which carries a good but not an prison, Moncrieff was immediately accused of using disturbing thoughts that might raise concern.
The Penal Code sentence for his future charge of criminal intimidation includes a two-year sentence in jail, a great, or both.
The jury heard from Mr. Benedict Koh, the defense attorney. He made reference to a file from the Australian psychologist who works with Moncrieff that contained a diagnosis of anxiety and depression.
Mr. Koh pointed out that the document was never a forensic medical report, which the court generally required to establish that a mental illness contributed to offending behavior.
Given the seriousness of the case, he claimed that it was difficult for the defense to obtain such a document in such a short amount of time, and he pleaded with the judge to grant Moncrieff the benefit of the doubt.
According to Mr. Koh, Moncrieff had “placed great trust” in his intended holiday and had invested a lot of money and monthly left into the trip as the history to the crimes.
Moncrieff had been away from home for two times and missed two traumas in Australia during that period, he said, adding to the pressure of losing that vacation.
The attorney also quoted from a letter of apology from Moncrieff, who stated that he regretted the circumstances and did not want to worry those who were” just doing their careers.”
Prosecutor Mr. Lim said he would not demand a forensic medical report that would establish a causal relationship between the crimes, and that Moncrieff showed a degree of shame higher than is typically seen.
Given the security issues surrounding flights, he argued that the judge’s statement cannot be readied as a “licence for upset people to give vent to their feelings.”
While thoughts ran higher in Moncrieff’s case, this was not uncommon in an aircraft where aspects like missed or delayed flights are present, he said.
In punishment, Judge Toh observed that “mere comments can have severe effects”.
The prosecutor said the word had to take into account basic punishment in light of the current environment in which aviation protection is of utmost concern.
He reaffirmed that Moncrieff’s risks did not harm him beyond the investigations on his belongings and his flight-related detention. Emergency firefighters were no activated, and flights were not diverted.
However, Judge Toh ruled that there was no proof of a contributing link between the crimes and Moncrieff’s medical condition, so Judge Toh could not take that into account.
The prosecutor argued that the accused had considered the sincerity of his thoughts as he considered going to jail, and that he “undertook it.”