Police officer won’t be charged despite claim he was ‘poaching’ on private land |
Printable View
I know one of them. Wife worked with his partner/wife.
He seemed to be a straight up and down fella. I reckon there is more to the story.
Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
look forward to more information . . .
The guy shone a light into a paddock. Nothing else. What are supposed to charge him with?
Yep he shone a light into someones paddock. You got to ask why??. Bullocks.
I may be wrong but I think there has been a compaint laid to the "police complaint authority" by three people who were charged of poaching under lesser circurmstances be interesting to see full outcome
Ute full of guns and blokes pointing a spot into a paddock that just happens to hold deer............. not rocket science really.
Illegal hunting. Shining a spotlight around with a gun in the car, thats all the evidence you need. Remember you can get charged for drunk driving with out driving the car. Sitting in the car with the keys is enough to get done. People have been charged around here for that exact thing. Young fellas shining the spotlight around down a local road around here got done for it. cocky saw them rings the cops. cops catch the young fellas and charge them. Yet this cop gets off for the same thing???????????
You or I would have been charged and have to pay to try and prove our innocence.
Appears wearing a blue shirt and you avoid that test.Nice of the crown law office to save these Fallows a lawyers bill.
Slippery slope.
Happened round here a few years back a still back and still happens in Dannerivke one of the cops is real bad.
The guy up here went into a paddock poaching in the cop ute and got locked in there buy a very irate farmer.
His punishment was he was sent to Pitcairn island.
Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Two sets of rules, one for them and one for us.
Seen it happen before
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...
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.
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.nzQuote:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!