Thread: Police poachers not charged.

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.

Really? There is a cost to taking a civil case.... It really is up to the police, that is what they are there for (They ARE the EXECUTIVE, and are responsible for upholding the law...)

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?

You even get caught with a light in the Kaimanawa forest park in your car you loose .

Used to work for DOC years ago, responded to a call from the crew we had on an Island doing Kiwi monitoring, that someone was shooting towards them, it was dark and the person was using a spotlight from a boat. When we arrived and found the "person" it turned out to be a local cop and his mates............sighting his rifle in on DOC signs before carrying on to spotlight the surrounding Islands. He really got punished alright, when the shit hit the fan, they transferred him to Auckland, now that's punishment alright, what a farkin joke!! So yup definitely two sets of rules alright.

So joe public goes poaching he gets a $100000 fine and if you are a cop then based on the unconfirmed stories in this thread you get sent to either Pitcarn Island or Auckland? That doesn't sound like one rule for all.

You think that didn't cost him more than $10000....?

And he got sent to Auckland ...lol

If he has to buy or rent a house in Auckland he is well stuffed.....

Transfer to Auckland moving costs $3000,
Pay cut due to bringing police force into disrepute $0.00

Finding somewhere ot live at short notice..Priceless.......(or unaffordable, impossible, might as well quit now..)

this shit is reserved for/the paranoid wee Im always alright on the TARD ME MESSAGES BOARDS. its been dealt with ,the court of public opinion means 6 7/8 of sweet fuck all ,leave it and move on. sidney your mob are renowned as gougers!

do you have a clue what my mob is

Now you know thats not what I said...

I was simply pointing out there was cost to what happened to him... and that doesn't mean I was justifying anything...

I made no comment on the relative merit or otherwise of that outcome... I simply pointed out there was cost...

Do people know what 'hunt' means in law?
It does seem reading statutes is no more popular here than any other forum. What people 'reckon' isnt worth much in court.

Wild animal control act - look under definitions:

Hunt or kill, in relation to wild animals, includes—

(a) hunting or searching for any wild animal, and killing, taking, trapping, capturing, having in possession, tranquillising, or immobilising any such animal by any means:

(b) pursuing, disturbing, or molesting any such animal:

(c) taking or using any dog, firearm, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, net, snare, trap, poison, or like method while engaged in hunting any such animal, whether or not this results in capturing or killing any such animal:

(d) attempting to hunt or capture or kill any such animal while engaged in recreational, commercial, or guided hunting or hunting to capture live wild animals for export, farming, sale, breeding, exchange, public display, scientific, or other purposes:

(e) engaging in a wild animal recovery operation

'Molest' has an older meaning to do with harassing - the more modern interpretation of the word probably comes with other charges and is less popular. I hope.

Originally Posted by bang-thud-thump

Do people know what 'hunt' means in law?
It does seem reading statutes is no more popular here than any other forum. What people 'reckon' isnt worth much in court.

Wild animal control act - look under definitions:

Hunt or kill, in relation to wild animals, includes—

(a) hunting or searching for any wild animal, and killing, taking, trapping, capturing, having in possession, tranquillising, or immobilising any such animal by any means:

(b) pursuing, disturbing, or molesting any such animal:

(c) taking or using any dog, firearm, vehicle, vessel, aircraft, net, snare, trap, poison, or like method while engaged in hunting any such animal, whether or not this results in capturing or killing any such animal:

(d) attempting to hunt or capture or kill any such animal while engaged in recreational, commercial, or guided hunting or hunting to capture live wild animals for export, farming, sale, breeding, exchange, public display, scientific, or other purposes:

(e) engaging in a wild animal recovery operation

'Molest' has an older meaning to do with harassing - the more modern interpretation of the word probably comes with other charges and is less popular. I hope.

Good luck arguing this if you get caught with scuba gear....in your vehicle....while in possession of paua.
The onus is on you to prove innocense - and it is bloody hard to do.
If you have a spotlight and a rifle, it is hard to argue you aren't hunting regardless of a paper definition...taking this into account, you fail the test of both b) and c).
Your thoughts?

I agree possession can/does imply guilt and its hard to disprove. I free dive/spear fish and collect paua. I dont have tanks but I go on a mates boat and we wouldnt have tanks within cooee of us. Too much risk and its made very public what can happen. Good job when it does. Screw the poachers! They ruin it for everyone.

In terms of hunting s38 of the WAC act states the onus is reversed - as it should be.
Wild Animal Control Act 1977 No 111 (as at 28 November 2013), Public Act 38 Presumptions and obligations in connection with hunting and killing – New Zealand Legislation

Take it from a land owners point of view. Unless you film a poacher lining up an animal, laying traps etc or butchering/carrying then you have bugger all chance of pinging them. Letting them walk where they want is ridiculous.
The onus is on the hunter to know where they are and have express permission of the land owner or occupier to be there.(thats in the act too)
Again - good job when they get busted.

I dont see any good reason to be on someones land with your hunting gear unless you have been caught by severe weather or injured and taking the quickest way out. And of course in doing thi you will have dumped your kill as you are after the quickest safest way out. If you can hump a deer you aint in immediate danger.

If you lose you car license in court for your first drink drive you get it back in 6 months. The FAL is a little harder to retrieve.

And I agree with the initial post - all people should be treated equally but beware of how poorly the media reports the 'facts' before we can make a balanced decision.