Thread: Police poachers not charged.

If it makes any difference I have not charged hunters with Unlawful hunting because it lacked in some way shape or form..most of the time it is because you have to prove they were actually hunting "what were you doing?" "I was in the doc block but got lost so walked out onto this farm, I'm not hunting my firearm is unloaded"

I don't know anything about this incident but for anyone to be charged under the Wild animals control act you must be able to prove that they 1) hunted OR killed OR had in there possession a wild animal ON land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
2)Discharged a firearm into OR over OR across any land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.

I'm not sure where they were when they were lighting the land? from a public road?

I doubt there is a big cover up as some suggest - I wish I only had to meet some of the ingredient's of an offence to charge someone!

An unrelated example - search warrant at well known address, drug paraphernalia for Africa, a point bag located with some white crystal in the corner (small amount), offender when asked says meth, ESR say Meth, judge says "well how do I know that it is enough to use? and dismisses the charge.

Its not easy to prosecute people without meeting evidential sufficiency if they go not guilty.

Originally Posted by Smartie

If it makes any difference I have not charged hunters with Unlawful hunting because it lacked in some way shape or form..most of the time it is because you have to prove they were actually hunting "what were you doing?" "I was in the doc block but got lost so walked out onto this farm, I'm not hunting my firearm is unloaded"

I don't know anything about this incident but for anyone to be charged under the Wild animals control act you must be able to prove that they 1) hunted OR killed OR had in there possession a wild animal ON land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.
2)Discharged a firearm into OR over OR across any land without permission of the owner/lawful occupier of that land.

I'm not sure where they were when they were lighting the land? from a public road?

I doubt there is a big cover up as some suggest - I wish I only had to meet some of the ingredient's of an offence to charge someone!

An unrelated example - search warrant at well known address, drug paraphernalia for Africa, a point bag located with some white crystal in the corner (small amount), offender when asked says meth, ESR say Meth, judge says "well how do I know that it is enough to use? and dismisses the charge.

Its not easy to prosecute people without meeting evidential sufficiency if they go not guilty.

The problem here lies with the JUDICIARY and their interpretation of the law - as seen by not granting preventive detention orders against those who cannot be trusted to live in society (it cuts both ways - the cops and parole boards advise that someone is a risk, yet the judiciary in their wisdom disagree....).

It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.

38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
(1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
(2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

It's amazing what you learn when you actually read the legislation.

38Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing
(1)In any prosecution for an offence against this Act, proof that any person found in any area where wild animals are usually present had with him or under his control any poison, snare, net, trap, or firearm, or any vessel, vehicle, or aircraft so adapted or equipped as to be capable of being used for hunting or killing any wild animal, or any dog or weapon that could be used for the purpose of hunting or killing any wild animal, shall be evidence from which the court shall presume, until the contrary is proved, that the person was hunting or killing wild animals in the area.
(2)Where any person is found on any land in an area where wild animals are usually present in circumstances that create a prima facie presumption under subsection (1) that he was hunting or killing wild animals in the area, if a licence, permit, concession, or other authority under this Act to hunt or kill wild animals in the area is required, or if any licence, permit, concession, or other authority under any other Act to enter onto the land to hunt or kill wild animals is required, the person shall produce his licence, permit, concession, or other authority to any authorised person demanding its production within a reasonable time, and if he fails to do so and if he is unable to prove that he was not hunting or killing wild animals in the area or on the land, as the case may be, he commits an offence against this Act.

So reading that, a woman cannot be done for poaching?