Thread: Farmer lying about paper road?

Originally Posted by XR500

Someone slides off a paper road and dies, they didn't die on your land. They died on a public road (OK, they might end up on your land, having slid off public land...just like 50% of current road accidents)

Someone slides off one of your farm tracks, but wasn't permitted to be there: HSAW Act 2015 does not apply to the incident.

I fully understand farmer's reticence re permitting the public to cross their land, but it boils down to: A paper road is not their land. End of story.

I think you'll find when that goes to court you'll be had up for not maintaining said paper road to a standard you can drive a swift up it...unfortunately speaking from experience

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by BRADS

I think you'll find when that goes to court you'll be had up for not maintaining said paper road to a standard you can drive a swift up it...unfortunately speaking from experience

Sent from my SM-G986B using Tapatalk

I highly doubt that. HSAW Act specifies that if people are on your land without your authority, culpability does not apply.

But back to the paper road, if a judge is that thick, you simply bring up WAMS, show him the purple bit and say: Its an unformed legal road, not farmland within my title. I am a farmer, not a council and I do not own a road. It simply runs through bits of my farm. Go talk to the council.

Ok. But if I used their tracks (paper road) undetected and finally they caught me, so what I shall be facing? A charge for trespassing?

You are mixing up ownership a bit: Often farm tracks may 'sort of' follow a paper road alignment. Therefore you will be trepassing if you do not rigidly stick to the purple alignment shown on WAMS. Which is what makes using paper roads so difficult. Often the terrain means no vehicle could stick to the true paper road alignment, so each time you wander back onto the bit of the track thats on the farmers land, you are tresspassing. If, however you walk or manage to stick ridgidly to the true paper road alignment, you have remained on public land. It may look like farmland, it may smell like farmland, it may taste like farmland, but the purple bit is public road.

Had a nasty incident happen to me and my buddy and i was shocked at the stupidity of the 'farmers employee'. Im an ex soldier and i really didn't like having some idiot storm up on me with bullshit, bravado and a rifle. The whole situation was reported to the police and bugger all has come of it. This is just lunacy.

Another example of why the law abiding are having less and less respect for the authorities. When an incident such as this is fobbed off.

Originally Posted by T.FOYE

Had a nasty incident happen to me and my buddy and i was shocked at the stupidity of the 'farmers employee'. Im an ex soldier and i really didn't like having some idiot storm up on me with bullshit, bravado and a rifle. The whole situation was reported to the police and bugger all has come of it. This is just lunacy.

I had a firearm presented at me when I was standing on a formed public road with cars driving past. Not nice. Police did not act, I know this because the bloke still had firearms two years later. I think we should pursue these cases.
What I have done in the past with other situations is visit the local Court and complain to the Registrar that no action has taken place and ask them what to do. This has produced a result ...

With virtually everyone carrying a cell phone on them, surprised a few pics have not surfaced of such drama? A picture tells a thousand words or something like that..

Originally Posted by Hunteast

With virtually everyone carrying a cell phone on them, surprised a few pics have not surfaced of such drama? A picture tells a thousand words or something like that..

But please remember a picture often only tells half the story...and usually the other halfs view point instead of yours...I know this from experience. We had security holding down an aggressive assailant waiting for police to arrive yet the news only showed the security restraining him and deliberately did not show the assailant attacking two females waiting to enter (which is WHY he was restrained in the first place...).It went to court and the security were accused of excessive force. When the FULL security video was shown ALL charges were dismissed but there was never any retraction from the media about them "getting the story wrong". Note that the full video is not legally accessible to the public and was never allowed to be shown apart from being used as evidence or Police / internal affairs investigations.

And then the shop video from the Auckland Gun Shop many years ago showing an assailant entering using a knife to take on the shop staff during a burglary in day time if i remember correct - ended up being shot by the owner but survived. Was a drama for the owner though after court to be fair. What i am indicating is that more footage of similar situations will still go a long way in telling the story to assist in court. Who releases the footage to the media or has the rights to release to media is entirely up to you at the time? Just like car dash cam footage - i used in a car accident when hit front on while on a dirt road to go hunting - the other person not knowing i had dash cam - he told a different story and was caught out when the video was presented later on. I won, he lost. Police viewed but i didn't let them copy it.

Getting away from the op but at the start of our road we have a camera's operating sign. All footage we can do what we like with it. Sign had to be back at least a hundred meters from camera's so joe public can turn around if they want with out been on camera.
Also because most of these road camera's are owned privately info can be shared, different story if police paid for cameras

Originally Posted by bigbear

Getting away from the op but at the start of our road we have a camera's operating sign. All footage we can do what we like with it. Sign had to be back at least a hundred meters from camera's so joe public can turn around if they want with out been on camera.
Also because most of these road camera's are owned privately info can be shared, different story if police paid for cameras

It's the ones that turn around that really need to be recorded....I would be curious to know where the regulations for cameras is posted as we are giving serious consideration to installing one.

Originally Posted by Hunteast

With virtually everyone carrying a cell phone on them, surprised a few pics have not surfaced of such drama? A picture tells a thousand words or something like that..

I had replied to a newspaper add with a scope for sale. After phoning and making an appointment 6:30 pm (winter) I drove to the guys address on Mandeville Road in Ohoka. His name was Lyn Knight. The gate at the road edge property boundary was locked so I called out 'Mr Knight' as I could hear voices in a shed. No reply, then quiet footsteps on the gravel. Me " Hey is that Mr Knight - I've come to look at the scope as arranged" Reply " Just as well you spoke I thought you were trying to break in and was just about to give you a barrel " Appears in the gloom with a 12 gauge pointed at my chin. Him " Well now you are here come and have a look at the scope" Me " You know, I dont think that scope is right for me, thanks very much"
Complained to Police and signed a statement etc. then couldnt believe it when I saw him in a gun shop 12 months later buying a firearm - talked to him and he was still actively using firearms - didnt recognise me.

Originally Posted by mimms2

Pretty sure it's only illegal to record "where people have a reasonable expectation of privacy"
,Pubs for instance, can have a security cam pointing to the dunny door, but couldn't have one in the bathroom.


Thus anything on a public road is fair game (dash cam etc)

I might get caught out then as one particular corner is where the local dope smokers park and spark up, nice spot as they have a clear view for a couple of km's down the road, I call the spot "Tissue Point" but that's another story.

Originally Posted by Moa Hunter

I had replied to a newspaper add with a scope for sale. After phoning and making an appointment 6:30 pm (winter) I drove to the guys address on Mandeville Road in Ohoka. His name was Lyn Knight. The gate at the road edge property boundary was locked so I called out 'Mr Knight' as I could hear voices in a shed. No reply, then quiet footsteps on the gravel. Me " Hey is that Mr Knight - I've come to look at the scope as arranged" Reply " Just as well you spoke I thought you were trying to break in and was just about to give you a barrel " Appears in the gloom with a 12 gauge pointed at my chin. Him " Well now you are here come and have a look at the scope" Me " You know, I dont think that scope is right for me, thanks very much"
Complained to Police and signed a statement etc. then couldnt believe it when I saw him in a gun shop 12 months later buying a firearm - talked to him and he was still actively using firearms - didnt recognise me.

Now that is completely fucked. Pointing a firearm at anyone that is not posing an imminent threat to your life (could be a crim, a member of the public or even a Policeman) will see me exhaust all avenues to have them feel the full measure of the law.