Mad Bomber to be compensated

nhand42 said :

He did injure several people. Postal workers were hit by shrapnel after one of the parcels exploded prematurely.

He should never have been released. He’s dangerous. He won’t be satisfied until people are dead.

This is something of a puzzle –
I found some interesting details that are on this question “Does Australia Post have a viable security system or not?” here: http://tinyurl.com/2674v55

It refers to the Canberra Times May 1999 article “Letter bombs: police had 10 hours’ notice”

+1 Pork Hunt.

He was wronged first. He is being punished for his inexcusable later actions, but that should not preclude recompense for apparently negligent or culpable hurt before then. If it did, then you would find employers of low moral fibre driving people over the edge to avoid compensation.

Yeah, freakin long bow, I know, but it was better than the Mully analogy I started with.

I think you’ll find that it probably related to the way the ATO handled his initial grievance and that allegedly exacerbated a pre-existing condition of depression.

Back in 1996, grievance handling procedures and subsequent investigation practices, tended to be ad-hoc, therefore a lack of procedural fairness in the way the matter was handled may have been enough to warrant examination by the AAT. I’m not sure about what policies were in place but if they weren’t sufficiently robust or if they weren’t followed properly then that would have been grounds for appeal.

The criminal acts are a separate issue and would not have been taken into account.

Pork Hunt said :

He is being compensated for the very illness that tipped him over the edge. What’s seems to be the drama here?

His work place “injury” and his subsequent criminality are surely separate issues??

Sounds about right to me.

I found some more interesting details here…

http://sites.google.com/site/evenmorenewsnow/news/n3902358986

As Pork Hunt said. It’s not like a subsequent criminal conviction makes it impossible for someone to have been hard done by.

Wow, he served 10 years. I know a case where they got parole after 10 years for murder. Sometimes law seems so unbalanced.

Never-the-less I think it very unfair that people can get compo following an incident like this. Surely the compo was the fact he didn’t get a longer jail sentence for his crimes.

ThatGuy said :

Nevertheless, it’s a shame they can’t take into account the fact that he attempted to kill or maim several people. Then they could say that he is entitled to compensation but his previous sins cancels it out.

He did injure several people. Postal workers were hit by shrapnel after one of the parcels exploded prematurely.

He should never have been released. He’s dangerous. He won’t be satisfied until people are dead.

Pork Hunt said :

He is being compensated for the very illness that tipped him over the edge. What’s seems to be the drama here?

His work place “injury” and his subsequent criminality are surely separate issues??

Not entirely… It seems the illness resulted from his treatment by the ATO and that “tipped him over the edge”. It was this illness that led to the criminal behaviour. I have looked at the psychiatric evidence accepted by the AAT –

I regard his depressed state of mind at the time to have been an essential ingredient in the behaviour that led to his arrest. He was desperate, without hope and had decided to end his life.

Given evidence of workplace harassment that Comcare gave to the AAT, it is surprising the AAT only provided compensation for the ATO’s role in exacerbating his illness. The following is from a written submission by his co-worker that she gave to the Human Rights Office in 1996. Note that she thought this was an answer to Dunstan’s complaint against her and the Tax Office. Comcare gave a copy of this evidence to the Tribunal and argued this harassment at work should be called a “personal matter”:

On Monday 17 Feb 1992 Colin told me he made love to his wife during the weekend when I questioned him.
I screamed at him and said that if he needed sex that badly he could see a prostitute and I could pay for him if he did not have the money.
Colin said he didn’t want to have sex with strangers. I said ‘Then have sex with me then.’

Don’t we all get upset sometimes at work, but does that give us the right to attempt to blow up honest, hardworking people or maim them whilst they go about there day to day job… Uh, NO!!!

He is being compensated for the very illness that tipped him over the edge. What’s seems to be the drama here?

His work place “injury” and his subsequent criminality are surely separate issues??