Thread: Police poachers not charged.

With firearms in the car you need to behave, if he didn't have them in there it wouldnt have been a problem.

This isn't about doing whats right and been a cop, this is about having a case thrown out of court. The way the law is worded, to be poaching, two things must happen:
1. Illegally be on a property
2. Have intent to take animals

From the media's report, only one of these things happened (2). Therefore, it would be difficult for the police to put this in front of a judge.

I suspect that if a deer was seen, it would have been shot and received from the farmers land. However, in this case, it didn't happen like that. I don't believe you can be charged with thinking about or considering poaching.

I wonder if they held FAL as some Police officers don't..........................just saying. It could get an little murky if they were riding around with firearms without the proper paperwork eh...

Originally Posted by Uplandstalker

This isn't about doing whats right and been a cop, this is about having a case thrown out of court. The way the law is worded, to be poaching, two things must happen:
1. Illegally be on a property
2. Have intent to take animals

From the media's report, only one of these things happened (2). Therefore, it would be difficult for the police to put this in front of a judge.

I suspect that if a deer was seen, it would have been shot and received from the farmers land. However, in this case, it didn't happen like that. I don't believe you can be charged with thinking about or considering poaching.

I read somewhere that Police were taking the Hard line with poaching and that if you were found with firearms in an area where game was present then you were considered to be hunting and it was up to you to prove otherwise.

Brown said poaching was a big problem in the area and it was dangerous to confront hunters with guns.

"I think this is double standards - it's pretty hard to have faith in the police force."

In March, Central Otago prevention officer Toni Velenski told a community paper, The News, police now had a better understanding of their powers under the Wild Animal Control Act.

"If someone is found in an area where wild animals are present, and the person has something they could hunt with, they are presumed to be hunting unless the opposite can be proved."

A change to the Act in 2013 means poachers now face fines of up to $100,000 and a year in prison.
- Sunday Star Times

Last part of the article said above. see here for full article Police officer won't be charged despite claim he was 'poaching' on private land | Stuff.co.nz

There is no point is laying charges if they won't stand in court.

I'm sure if he wasn't a cop and was once of us, and was charged, there would be an uproar that he shouldn't have been.

For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:

“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”

Police complaints authority is a joke. Always has been.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

For all the people saying innocent until proven guilty there is this bit:

“A couple of weeks later we caught another poacher in the same situation and he went through the courts within a week or two.”

Police complaints authority is a joke. Always has been.

The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

I find it interesting that plod and other agencies are placing the burden of proof on the accused now days, I thought it was meant to be the other way round.

Originally Posted by Uplandstalker

The farmer said that, right?

If he is so certain about this, there is the option of a civil case against him. You don't have to use the police to put a case in front of a judge.

The farmer said that and it was reported on stuff which as we all know is about as accurate as a shotgun work slugs at 600m. However as it's the only info we have to go on it''s the only thing we can draw conclusions from. Sure the farmer could take a civil prosicution but why should he have to. If the bloke in person was so convinced of his innocense then he should have no problem proving that in a cort of law.

If you read the wild animal control act then you don't have to actually shoot anything to be guilty of illegal hunting aka poaching. Being in a area with game and having the equipment to hunt is enough proof. Thats the conclusion that southland police came to and if this bloke is a sworn officer then he should know all that and be smart enough to not shine spotlights on paddocks where he has repeatadly been denied hunting access.

Credability is the real thing being questioned here. If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says. It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.

Originally Posted by MassiveAttack

Credability is the real thing being questioned here. If a small matter like this gets swept under the rug then why should we believe anything a sworn police officer says. It's the boys in blue that suffers in the long run.

Pretty much my thoughts, I don't think they have the credibility they once did.

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 1000PA

I wonder if they held FAL as some Police officers don't..........................just saying. It could get an little murky if they were riding around with firearms without the proper paperwork eh...

They could be rapists too as they are men, and some men are rapist's?

Originally Posted by Smartie

They could be rapists too as they are men, and some men are rapist's?

i have had firearms taken off me... Long story, but relating to this. the officer never showed me his licence and i heard through the rumour mill he didnt have one.

Originally Posted by 223nut

i have had firearms taken off me... Long story, but relating to this. the officer never showed me his licence and i heard through the rumour mill he didnt have one.

FAL is not required if you are a police officer performing your duties, same as armed forces I am led to believe. I don't have a issue with it being that way.

Are you saying that a police officer doing his/her job took your firearms from you, and that they did not have a licence?

If so I don't see the issue, that pretty normal.

If you are saying that they use firearms recreationally and don't have a firearms license, than that is an issue?