Thread: Illegal hunting..does it bother you?

Originally Posted by Tahr

Sort of, but the law does not presume guilt.

I think that you are alluding to the principle of "strict liability".

In strict liability the Crown or claimant need only prove that the act or action occurred and that the defendant was responsible. Intention does not need to be proven. Strict liability is incorporated into Acts where offences are considered to be inherently dangerous.

Could you perhaps expand on the above please Tahr. Fish and Game are umbrellaed under the Conservation Act. Would the way in which the law is applied to F&G offences be an indication of how it might also be applied to DOC hunting offences ?. F&G seem to be able to get a prosecution for intent - possession of a rod or gun without a licence and no proof of illegal activity.