Aviation security worker charged with ‘feigning’ concern over fake bomb

A former Aviation Security Services officer claimed he was unable to sleep after seeing what was inside a closed bag he found at Dunedin airport.

But prosecutor Richard Smith told the Dunedin District Court jury that he was considering the Preetam Prakash Maid case that the former airport worker was “pretending.”

The Crown alleged that the 32-year-old man planted a device on the north side of the airport on March 17, 2019, two days after the Christchurch terror attack.

The device contained cables, a cylinder, batteries, a cell phone and a cryptic note, the jury heard as part of the trial, now in its third week.

READ MORE:
* Airport worker allegedly planted a fake bomb to expose security flaws
* Preetam Maid named as accused of bomb threat at Dunedin Airport
* A viral Facebook hoax that fools people into thinking their account was hacked

Maid is charged with bringing a copycat explosive device to an enhanced security area.

His attorney, Deborah Henderson, said there were several reasons why he should be found not guilty, including the fact that he was never seen making, planting, or participating in the device.

No fingerprints or DNA were found on the note, bag or hut where the device was placed, Henderson said.

Smith said that while the case was circumstantial, largely because there were no witnesses to the alleged crime, all threads of evidence had to be analyzed together.

That included Maid twice visiting an area where the dummy bomb components were obtained.

The so-called Crown Maid set out to build a knockoff device and packed it in an old laptop backpack.

He used a different backpack to transport the device through an advanced security area.

Maid then obtained the keys to a vehicle that only he would use that night, and put the bag inside.

Smith said airport staff were on high alert due to the Christchurch mosque shootings.

Maid radioed her supervisor on the last mobile patrol on her shift and told him she could see debris near a cabin.

The Crown claimed it was part of “their cunning ruse” and that there was no debris.

Instead, the alleged sighting gave him the opportunity to do a closer inspection. He parked near the cabin, blocking it from view of those at the airport, before placing the device.

He claimed that he saw a bag with a note and that he “now treats this like a bomb.”

Maid didn’t stop firefighters from walking directly toward the device because it wasn’t a bomb, but she wanted them to take the device seriously, Smith told the jury.

Maid left work at 8:30 p.m. and contacted five media outlets about the incident.

Smith said Maid’s goal was to force security changes at the airport that would mean more work hours, and more pay, for Maid.

Henderson rejected that claim of motive, saying the reports that Maid contacted the media were a “red herring”.

It noted that 45 people had access to the secure storage area and the police could not rule out that other people had accessed the area near the hut.

A handwritten note found with the bomb read: “A. Alpha, B. Birds, C. Crash, D. Dunedin, E. Emergency, F. Fools. “

A handwriting expert discovered that Maid may have written the note, which was linked to a notebook found in a secure area of ​​the airport.

Most revealing was the letter ‘r’, which looked like a fish and had “obvious similarities” to Maid’s handwriting sample, Smith said.

Henderson said no one else at the airport had their handwriting checked. His client was cooperating with the police and willingly provided his DNA for testing.

Smith took note of Maid’s claims that she was unable to sleep due to what she saw inside the bag, but the contents were not determined until later.

“He’s pretending,” he said.

The airport closed briefly after the incident, forcing an international flight to return to Australia and diverting several domestic flights.

Judge Crosbie will summarize the case Tuesday morning.