Maybe people would stop poaching if judges actually gave out decent punishments. This situation could have ended so much worse and surely calls for harsher punishments?
Poachers fined for shooting pregnant ewe | Stuff.co.nz
Printable View
Maybe people would stop poaching if judges actually gave out decent punishments. This situation could have ended so much worse and surely calls for harsher punishments?
Poachers fined for shooting pregnant ewe | Stuff.co.nz
People won't stop poaching because they want something for free, and their attitude is fuck you Jack, I want it, so I'll take it.
In this case:
$2000 of firearms confiscated.
$3500 fine for one, $4500 fine for the other while defense lawyers argued for $1200 fine.
And, with the majority of cases, there are circumstances which are taken into account.
And it looks like they didn't lose their FALs (it doesn't actually say if they were even licensed ), or does that come later?
Given all of the circumstances, sounds like a reasonable and considered penalty to me. I doubt if triple the penalty would have been any greater deterrent.
Yeah fair point guys. Was just thinking how bad it could have been (with the house directly behind the deer), did it warrant more severe punishments? But yeah, I fully see your point
"Judge Russell said his sentence had to hold the offenders accountable, denounce their conduct, serve as a deterrent to others and protect the community.
His sentence starting point was a shared $10,000 fine for the lead charge of unlawful hunting of the deer.
He added $750 for the theft of the sheep.
He gave both offenders a 15 per cent discount for their guilty pleas and Tuffnell a further discount because the firearms, which she partially owned and were worth about $2000, were to be forfeited.
Tuffnell's final sentence was a $3500 fine and Thompson's was a $4500 fine, plus emotional harm payments to the farmer of $250 each.
Both were also disqualified from driving for three months.
Criminals rarely consider the potential consequences of their actions
I dont get the disqualified from driving addition. It was not a driving offence unless they were shooting from the car....but it said nothing about that. I dont have an issue with it and figure there is something there to justify it, but wonder why bother mentioning it in the article if they did not mention a vehicle at any point apart from the claim they hit the sheep.
in view of their"published"circumstances and the absolute B/S of the legal beagles,Id say it would be a fairly hefty wee price to pay!probably be plenty of sarcasm&shit thrown their way too for "getting caught" by equally maladapted entities.