Originally Posted by
cestmoi123
It ceases to be an issue once the placement has restricted your movement. Until it does, there's no harm, so no standing.
You'll notice that in the cases that have thus far been successful (i.e. Latif v Holder), the plaintiffs had been denied boarding.
I wonder if this legal concept has been pushed a little too far. BY extension, this means that if someone puts GHB into your drink at a party, you have no legal standing to sue them unless you actually try to drink the drink.
On the other hand, for criminal prosecution, intent is enough, even if the attempt to harm has failed.