Jail for tourist who threatened to crash flight at Changi Airport after his holiday plans were disrupted

SINGAPORE: Upset about disrupted holiday plans, a tourist twice threatened to crash his flight while waiting to board at Changi Airport.

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 using threatening words to cause alarm.

A second similar charge was considered in sentencing.

The court heard that sometime before Nov 20, 2024, Moncrieff took a Jetstar flight from Perth to Phuket, stopping over in Singapore.

Moncrieff had been planning this trip for a while and it cost him a good deal of money, the prosecutor said.

However, he was denied entry in Phuket as a page of visas was torn out of his passport. He was placed on a flight to Singapore, where he was also denied entry for the same reason.

At Changi Airport, immigration officers helped Moncrieff to retrieve prescription medication for anxiety and depression from his check-in luggage.

He was then brought to a holding room at a boarding gate to wait for Jetstar flight JQ96 back to Perth.

At about 5.40am on Nov 20, 2024, Moncrieff was being escorted to the flight as the first passenger to board the plane.

Upset at how his holiday plans had turned out, he made a threat, saying: “I want the aircraft to crash and kill everyone.”

A flight attendant heard him say this and was alarmed. She consulted her managers and the captain, and they decided to remove Moncrieff from the flight.

They searched Moncrieff and his luggage but did not find anything incriminating.

They then handed him over to local authorities, who brought him to Jetstar’s arrival counter to wait for another repatriation flight at the airline’s expense.

While waiting, Moncrieff was talking to his girlfriend when he said: “If they put me on another flight, I will tell them I will crash the plane again.”

These words were overheard by an Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) officer.

Moncrieff was agitated when he said this, although he did not raise his voice or use vulgarities, the prosecutor said.

Given the severity of what she had heard, the ICA officer asked Moncrieff what he had said in order to confirm it. He repeated the threat.

The ICA officer tried to calm him down, but he remained upset, and continued asking the officer to send him to prison and saying that he wanted to die.

The officer made a police report after discussing the matter with her colleagues, and Moncrieff was arrested later that day.

“MERE WORDS CAN HAVE SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES”

Deputy Public Prosecutor Shaun Lim asked for eight to 12 weeks’ imprisonment.

Mr Lim highlighted the fear that Moncrieff’s remarks caused and the negative impact of the case on Singapore’s reputation as an air hub.

He argued that the context of Moncrieff’s threats, which were made in an airport, warranted a significant jail term for deterrence.

Moncrieff was represented by lawyers from Pro Bono SG’s Ad Hoc Pro Bono Scheme, who sought one to two weeks’ imprisonment.

At the start of his mitigation, Moncrieff apologised to the judge for his reaction at a previous hearing when he was told his charges had been upgraded.

“I just want to apologise for how I reacted in my demeanour. I understand this is your courtroom, you sit in the highest seat,” he said to Principal District Judge Toh Han Li.

Defence lawyer Mr Benedict Koh then addressed the court. He referred to a document from Moncrieff’s psychologist in Australia that reflected a diagnosis of anxiety and depression.

Mr Koh noted that the document was not a forensic psychiatric report, which is what the court typically requires to establish that a psychiatric condition contributed to offending behaviour.

He said that the defence had difficulties obtaining such a report in such a short time given the urgency of the case, and asked the judge to give Moncrieff “the benefit of the doubt”.

Mr Koh said the background to the offences was that Moncrieff had “placed great hope” in his intended holiday and invested significant financial resources and annual leave into the trip.

On top of the stress of losing that holiday, Moncrieff had been away from home for two months and missed two bereavements in Australia during that time, he said.

The lawyer also quoted from an apology letter written by Moncrieff, who said he felt sorry for causing the situation and did not intend to alarm people who were “just doing their jobs”.

Prosecutor Mr Lim said he would not insist on a forensic psychiatric report to show a contributory link to the offences, and that Moncrieff showed a degree of remorse higher than is usually seen.

But he stressed that the court’s sentence cannot be interpreted as “licence for frustrated persons to give vent to their emotions”, given the security concerns when it comes to airports.

While emotions ran high in Moncrieff’s case, this was not unusual in an airport where factors like missed or delayed flights are present, he said.

In sentencing, Judge Toh observed that “mere words can have serious consequences”.

Noting the current climate where aviation security is of utmost concern, the judge said the sentence had to consider general deterrence.

He accepted that Moncrieff’s threats caused no harm beyond checks of his possessions and his removal from the flight. No flights were diverted and emergency responders were not activated.

But Judge Toh said he could not take Moncrieff’s psychiatric condition into account as there was no evidence of a contributory link to the offences.

“To the contrary, it seems to me that the accused understood the seriousness of his words as he contemplated the thought of being sent to jail,” said the judge.

Editor’s note: The charge for which Moncrieff was found guilty has been corrected in this article. We apologise for the error.