Thread: Poaching, let's get this straight

Originally Posted by Sidney

Your a patronising wee chap aren't you... did you miss my retraction re Agg burglary the very next post...

Did you miss also "You cannot commit burglary without a building...(or in some case law, other established structures)".... the point is that you need structure and it doesn't extend to farm paddocks in case law at this point as you should well know.

So an offender only gets charged with burglary if he breaks and enters and then assaults someone.. ?? I know this because I have arrested and charged people for exactly that. Often times and extra charge of theft is not used, but it depends on the circumstances.... The second offence helps to establish the evidence of intent for the first charge of burglary.... yes it is possible to charge someone with burglary without a second offence if you can establish to the court that the intent was there, but it is harder to do.... consider the drunk wanting somewhere to sleep... no intent - not burglary.. intentional damage ... unlawfully on property possibly...

There is no offence of Illegal Access, yes there is an offence of being Unlawfully on Property... what is your point...?


I think you need to keep up your research, and seek a little guidance cause the law is a bit tricky you know....

So what is the case law that states that a paddock isn't an enclosed yard? I don't recall any but I'm not right up to date with it.

How long ago did you last lay two informations for a burglary that involved a theft? In theory it is what should happen but it doesn't, it sure isn't the norm in our district. Assaults are treated differently as they obviously have to be.

Laying another charge isn't needed for 'evidence'.

A drunk wanting to sleep somewhere, not even unlawfully on property.

I was merely pointing out that Trespass isn't the 'be all, end all' and a warning doesn't have to be given before somebody is committing an offence.

I wasn't intending to be patronizing but now that I read it back I can see how it could be taken the wrong way, but you did have a number of flaws in your post and a condescending overtone.