Thread: Farmer not shot

Originally Posted by Pengy

Alisdair Macleay (75)

Ta - Article updated since I read it by the look.

this could get interesting if one has a rich dad or these are up and coming young sportsman glad the police did there bit and hope the law comes down hard on them

Originally Posted by MikeB

Ta - Article updated since I read it by the look.

I know him, you would too @MikeB?

Originally Posted by ebf

cops can do gunpowder swab test... just get them into separate interrogation rooms. tell them "you are being charged with attempted murder" and your mate next door has already confessed

Yep the shooter will have the most powder residue on trigger hand and face. Well that's what CSI tv tell me

Originally Posted by ebf

cops can do gunpowder swab test... just get them into separate interrogation rooms. tell them "you are being charged with attempted murder" and your mate next door has already confessed

Potentially all 3 could have some gunpowder residue as they could all have been shooting, at different times during the poaching.

We don't really need a crime squad, there's nothing that can't be solved on here.

Originally Posted by tetawa

We don't really need a crime squad, there's nothing that can't be solved on here.

Yep. We even have our own Bush Lawyers

As a bush lawyer I wish to make it clear to the court that the actual charges would be hunting unlawfully, trespassing, and some kind of firearms offence, careless use of, or some such.
There is no poaching involved here. Poaching is a game animal offence. If they caught a trout without a license, that would be poaching.

For example, a couple of guys got nailed for hunting deer on a farmers land recently and the judge ruled that the farmer be paid recompense for the worth of the animal. (Apart from other punishments for trespassing etc) The defence lawyer pointed out that the deer was wild. Its not illegal to shoot a wild deer whether is be on public or private land. In New Zealand the deer belongs to the Crown when its alive (meaning the New Zealand public) even on private property, and then to the person who shot it. So there was no offence for the killing or the taking of the animal, (and nothing paid to the farmer either.) Although I understand, you can get the deer carcass confiscated if you shot it while hunting unlawfully, or when trespassing, because you cannot profit from a crime.

Essentially, these people were trespassing, and carelessly using a firearm while hunting illegally. Not poaching.

To distil my point further, hunting illegally is not necessarily poaching, although poaching is hunting illegally.

I thought under the "Wild Game Act", the deer belonged to the owner of the land, could be wrong, have been before.

At least they got the bastards what ever the result should be loss of FAL one would assume.

Yup sadly all they can be done for is unlawful carry of a firearm and reckless/illegal discharge of a firearm.and be served a trespass notice.

Sent from my SM-G925I using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Carlsen Highway

As a bush lawyer I wish to make it clear to the court that the actual charges would be hunting unlawfully, trespassing, and some kind of firearms offence, careless use of, or some such.
There is no poaching involved here. Poaching is a game animal offence. If they caught a trout without a license, that would be poaching.

For example, a couple of guys got nailed for hunting deer on a farmers land recently and the judge ruled that the farmer be paid recompense for the worth of the animal. (Apart from other punishments for trespassing etc) The defence lawyer pointed out that the deer was wild. Its not illegal to shoot a wild deer whether is be on public or private land. In New Zealand the deer belongs to the Crown when its alive (meaning the New Zealand public) even on private property, and then to the person who shot it. So there was no offence for the killing or the taking of the animal, (and nothing paid to the farmer either.) Although I understand, you can get the deer carcass confiscated if you shot it while hunting unlawfully, or when trespassing, because you cannot profit from a crime.

Essentially, these people were trespassing, and carelessly using a firearm while hunting illegally. Not poaching.

To distil my point further, hunting illegally is not necessarily poaching, although poaching is hunting illegally.

Ok Carson I see your point. All makes seans. How about agrivated trespass as they were carrying firearms whenon his land with out permison, also shot at farmer?

Dont know if you have that charge in NZ. You do here in the UK and its not one that you want It can come with time in Klink

No You dont have that charge but what about these two?
Harassment and private nuisance
Threatening behaviour.

Not quite right Carlsen... the deer belongs to the Crown until "lawfully" taken. Shooting wild animal on land without permission to be there means that the deer has not been lawfully taken, so by definition it still belongs to the Crown. Technically a charge of theft from the Crown by unlawfully taking the animal could be preferred.. but has not been used so far as I am aware...

The lawyer was correct in that no restitution was payable to the farmer however...

Well, that's sort of what I said I thought...if I didn't then what you said is closer to what I should have said.

No one actually went onto his property. They shot a goat on a cliff that was next to the road