Thorbjorn Olesen - Arrested

[Imurg]

So..open season on a couple of jars and some pills then......could be a raucous summer next year..

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Disappointing for the staff involved and doesn't send a good message. Other travellers (not just the celebs) will see it as a green light to have a load of booze, take some pills and hang the consequence

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Disappointing for the staff involved and doesn't send a good message. Other travellers (not just the celebs) will see it as a green light to have a load of booze, take some pills and hang the consequence

I don’t think that’s right, or perhaps I’m misconstruing what you’re saying.

I’m pretty sure though if the pills had been taken for recreational use as opposed to with the plan of sleeping, olesen could not have relied on the particular defence that he did.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I don’t think that’s right, or perhaps I’m misconstruing what you’re saying.

I’m pretty sure though if the pills had been taken for recreational use as opposed to with the plan of sleeping, olesen could not have relied on the particular defence that he did.

As others have alluded to, this seemed to be a standard defence for this type of incident. He took a cocktail of drink and drugs and couldn't remember what he was doing. I would argue if you did that on a flight back from your holidays (if we are ever allowed to travel freely again) then if you applied the same defence it wouldn't work out as well. Perhaps being "known" with a few quid allows you to buy a good defence team

 

[Canary_Yellow]

As others have alluded to, this seemed to be a standard defence for this type of incident. He took a cocktail of drink and drugs and couldn't remember what he was doing. I would argue if you did that on a flight back from your holidays (if we are ever allowed to travel freely again) then if you applied the same defence it wouldn't work out as well. Perhaps being "known" with a few quid allows you to buy a good defence team

I’ve no idea on whether it’s a standard defence, I’m certainly no expert on these matters, I’ll take your word on it.

It’s also not really relevant to my point, which was that my understanding is that this isn’t going to result in the “green light” that you suggested because the defence relies on more than just a lack of memory. It relies on previous exemplary character and demonstrating that the sleeping pills were taken for the purpose of sleeping rather than partying.

That’s just based on my understanding of the argument though, im sure a legal eagle can point it out if that’s not correct. It’s probably covered in one or more of the other cases where this has been used as the standard defence. You could probably check what they were based on if you’re interested / concerned about the wider ramifications of the olesen case.

 

[hairball_89]

I feel little sympathy for him. He may well not remember what he did, but he wasn't slipped these pills against his will. He took prescription pills for which he did not have a prescription after 5 alcoholic drinks. He then owns all that results. In my opinion, the disinhibition caused by such a cocktail does not change the true personality, it reveals it.

It's this for me. Private plan and shedloads of cash for a lawyer or not, if you get your appendage out, urinate in public and hurl abuse you deserve the book thrown at you. Ridiculous IMO.

 

[Foxholer]

As others have alluded to, this seemed to be a standard defence for this type of incident....

Perhaps because it's 'the standard reason' it happens!
Not that I am in any way condoning what happened. In fact, loss of his income notwithstanding, I'm disappointed there doesn't seem to have been any 'compensation to the victims' involved/applied/required.

 

[Billysboots]

I’ve no idea on whether it’s a standard defence, I’m certainly no expert on these matters, I’ll take your word on it.

It’s also not really relevant to my point, which was that my understanding is that this isn’t going to result in the “green light” that you suggested because the defence relies on more than just a lack of memory. It relies on previous exemplary character and demonstrating that the sleeping pills were taken for the purpose of sleeping rather than partying.

That’s just based on my understanding of the argument though, im sure a legal eagle can point it out if that’s not correct. It’s probably covered in one or more of the other cases where this has been used as the standard defence. You could probably check what they were based on if you’re interested / concerned about the wider ramifications of the olesen case.

Automatism is a recognised defence, occasionally raised in road traffic cases, and is not really about an inability to remember, but about a defendant’s actions being involuntary.

I haven’t really followed this case closely, but it seems automatism has been raised as a defence on the basis that the cocktail of drink and drugs was such that the defendant acted entirely involuntarily.

I’m not a fan of it as a defence. I’m an ex-cop, for one! But a bigger issue for me is that it is very difficult to counter if argued effectively. Remember, a defence only has to introduce reasonable doubt for a defendant to be acquitted.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Automatism is a recognised defence, occasionally raised in road traffic cases, and is not really about an inability to remember, but about a defendant’s actions being involuntary.

I haven’t really followed this case closely, but it seems automatism has been raised as a defence on the basis that the cocktail of drink and drugs was such that the defendant acted entirely involuntarily.

I’m not a fan of it as a defence. I’m an ex-cop, for one! But a bigger issue for me is that it is very difficult to counter if argued effectively. Remember, a defence only has to introduce reasonable doubt for a defendant to be acquitted.

Yes, and as a question of fact it’s for the jury to decide. Which is what I was getting at with references to his character and the intent with which he took the pills.

Presumably to succeed with the argument, as a starting point the pills taken must be capable of that effect? I believe this one is a potential date rape drug, so would seem feasible.

My wife and I both did jury service recently, which was eye opening, particularly actually when it comes to the ability of defence barristers to muddy the waters and introduce shades of grey.

 

[Billysboots]

Yes, and as a question of fact it’s for the jury to decide. Which is what I was getting at with references to his character and the intent with which he took the pills.

Presumably to succeed with the argument, as a starting point the pills taken must be capable of that effect? I believe this one is a potential date rape drug, so would seem feasible.

My wife and I both did jury service recently, which was eye opening, particularly actually when it comes to the ability of defence barristers to muddy the waters and introduce shades of grey.

The pills would certainly have to be capable of inducing the kind of response alleged.

One example of automatism regularly cited is if a driver suffers a sneezing fit at the wheel and has a collision as a direct result. The defence would be that, during such an episode, a driver would have little or no control over a car.

And this is where it perhaps becomes a difficult defence, which is perhaps why it is rarely used. Something like that is as difficult to prove as it is to disprove, so can be considered a risky defence.

You’re absolutely bang on about defence barristers. Courtroom drama is very real, and at times borders on acting. I’ve come up against some absolutely brilliant defence barristers. And many who try and pull some outrageous stunts. Shades of grey is what it’s all about - they don’t need to prove their client’s innocence, after all, merely introduce doubt.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

The pills would certainly have to be capable of inducing the kind of response alleged.

One example of automatism regularly cited is if a driver suffers a sneezing fit at the wheel and has a collision as a direct result. The defence would be that, during such an episode, a driver would have little or no control over a car.

And this is where it perhaps becomes a difficult defence, which is perhaps why it is rarely used. Something like that is as difficult to prove as it is to disprove, so can be considered a risky defence.

You’re absolutely bang on about defence barristers. Courtroom drama is very real, and at times borders on acting. I’ve come up against some absolutely brilliant defence barristers. And many who try and pull some outrageous stunts. Shades of grey is what it’s all about - they don’t need to prove their client’s innocence, after all, merely introduce doubt.

Thank you, I think that’s encouraging, and to my point, that this case is unlikely to open a floodgate of people popping pills and not taking responsibility for themselves and getting away with it.

In this case, I think olesen has actually suffered quite a bit without being found guilty, which might not be the case for your average Joe!

 

[Ethan]

Perhaps because it's 'the standard reason' it happens!
Not that I am in any way condoning what happened. In fact, loss of his income notwithstanding, I'm disappointed there doesn't seem to have been any 'compensation to the victims' involved/applied/required.

If someone used the defence that they had 10 pints and a couple of vodkas and it is therefore not their fault they acted like a total Richard, would you accept that defence?

 

[Canary_Yellow]

If someone used the defence that they had 10 pints and a couple of vodkas and it is therefore not their fault they acted like a total Richard, would you accept that defence?

No, because alcohol isn’t capable of having that effect. Also, anyone that did that would definitely be guilty of being drunk on a plane!

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I’m glad - the punishment he’s endured for the last 2 and a bit years is more than sufficient for his conduct. He’s learned a very tough lesson already. What happened is very unpleasant, but ending his career would have been too much for me.

It certainly feels like he should be guilty of some kind of criminal offence, even if not the ones he was charged with.

Thank you, I think that’s encouraging, and to my point, that this case is unlikely to open a floodgate of people popping pills and not taking responsibility for themselves and getting away with it.

In this case, I think olesen has actually suffered quite a bit without being found guilty, which might not be the case for your average Joe!

I apologise, but aren’t you sending some mixed messages here?

Plus I’m not too sure on your definition’s of punishment and suffered.

What about a shout out to the sexual abuse the stewardess actually suffered, I’m not too convinced she’s feeling that protected tonight and as others have stated his ability to pay for a top lawyer will of helped.

By all means we have to trust the British Justice System, I’m just not sure we should be looking at him as some sort of victim in all this.

 

[Ethan]

No, because alcohol isn’t capable of having that effect. Also, anyone that did that would definitely be guilty of being drunk on a plane!

Oh, alcohol is most certainly capable of having that effect.

And I guarantee you that was not his first rodeo. Maybe first on a plane, but I bet there have been some others.

 

[Billysboots]

Oh, alcohol is most certainly capable of having that effect.

I’m not sure a defence of automatism in these circumstances would succeed if the defendant was simply drunk, primarily because he could realistically expect his behaviour to worsen when alcohol was consumed to excess.

I suspect the defence was successful because not only were his actions argued to be involuntary, but also unforeseen.

It’s a defence I’ve never been comfortable with, as it can be used in circumstances it perhaps wasn’t really intended for. Read into that what you will.

 

[Ethan]

I’m not sure a defence of automatism in these circumstances would succeed if the defendant was simply drunk, primarily because he could realistically expect his behaviour to worsen when alcohol was consumed to excess.

I suspect the defence was successful because not only were his actions argued to be involuntary, but also unforeseen.

It’s a defence I’ve never been comfortable with, as it can be used in circumstances it perhaps wasn’t really intended for. Read into that what you will.

Ambien is very well known in the US and there have been more than a few celebs who have lost it on Ambien, especially when mixed with alcohol at altitude. I think it was reasonably foreseeable.

 

[Billysboots]

Ambien is very well known in the US and there have been more than a few celebs who have lost it on Ambien, especially when mixed with alcohol at altitude. I think it was reasonably foreseeable.

In which case I’m surprised the defence succeeded, but as I say, I haven’t followed the case closely.

I’ve never seen automatism raised as a defence in an assault case. It’s rarely used at all, and we can perhaps see why. I’m not sure I’d be happy putting my fate in the hands of a jury relying on it, that’s for sure.

 

[Jimaroid]

but also unforeseen.

That is the part I’m struggling with as the effects of alcohol and Ambien on long haul flights are well documented.

edit. Ethan beat me.

 

[Foxholer]

If someone used the defence that they had 10 pints and a couple of vodkas and it is therefore not their fault they acted like a total Richard, would you accept that defence?

No!