Balaclava limits’ identification of deer ‘poacher’

Press, 2 September 1980, Page 4

Balaclava limits’ identification of deer ‘poacher’

The ‘‘limiting factor” a balaclava placed on identification of a person’s iacej contributed to the dismissal of two charges in the Dis-, trict Court yesterday. :

The charges were brought against an opossum hunter suspected of spotlighting for deer in- a prohibited deer re? .search area, and threatening the life of a forestry officer. . The defendant, Robert Les-, lie Thomson, aged: 27, of Glentunnel, '■ had. /denied charges of threatening tq kill a Forest Service technician, Raymond John Henderson; and a Wild Animal Control -Act prosecution of hunting for deer in the Harper-Avoca Shite forest without permission of the Forest Service, on June 8. Giving his decision Judge McAlpon described the bush and riverbed pursuit by JVIr Henderson in a forestry utility vehicle, of the utility vehicle suspected to have been used in poaching in the area,: as apparently, somewhat of a close-fought chase. The two vehicles hit each other several times. ; . . The Judge said the case was one which should be: determined on the strength of the identification of the defendant by Mr Henderson. Dismissing the two charges he said he was not satisfied as to the strength of this identity, beyond reasonable doubt.

Mr G. M. Brodie appeared for the defendant. Mr B. M. Stanaway prosecuted. Prosecution evidence was given that forestry officers, who had been on the alert for poachers in the State forest,' saw' a four-wheel-drive vehicle approach the forestry base shortly before midnight on June 7. The vehicle’s lights were turned off and some occupants searched around the base hut, looking into windows with torches.

They then drove, across q river to the State forest. Two - persons alighted .and used hand-held spotlights, while the vehicle continued up the riverbed and out of sight.

Th© vehicle returned shortly before 5 a.n,i. an# the

forestry vehicle was driven in front of it. < _

| Some occupants alighted and ran into the bush. Mr Henderson said in evidence that he ran aft?r them but gaye up the chase as he had no torch and was running into trees. ■ . r

; The vehicle drove off and he gave chase. He recounted the pursuit in which he ssid he blocked the driver’s path once op twice but he refused to stop. The vehicles ..collided- ; The vehicles entered the riverbed and Mr Henderson said -his vehicle pushed the other’s fender back into, the radiator, forcing it to stop. The person in the vehicle got out and told the witness if he did not get back into his (forestry)..' vehicle he would kill the witness.

The man pushed him twice in the chest before disappearing qn foot. .. -' The witness said the map had a balaclava but he could see his facial features and make but his physique:-, . : Two deer carcases were found in the vehicleAn unsuccessful search was made for the driver, and for those who had alighted earlier- . • ■? Later that day he identic fled the defendant as toe driver, and aa the man who threatened him. To Mr Brodie the witness said that at no stage did he deliberately ram the other vehicle. . .

He said he could see a fair proportion of the man s face to recognise him as the defendant. It was night, but full moon. There was. glare from the headlights lighting him- " ” .•"

Mr Henderson said he did, not see a rifle at all. No defence evidence was called but Mr Brodie submitted that ’ the case failed for want of sufficient- proof of identity of the alleged offender at the scene. ' He also said the way in which identity was obtained, by the defendant’s being taken to the forestry camp, was “so unreliable as to. be unsafe.”

Referring to the threat to kill charge Mr Brodie submitted that this c.QUId have been made by the driver, m response to the assault made

indirectly on him through the collisions and damage to his vehicle. The vehicle had been 'substantially damaged, and its chassis twisted. TAhybody: who believes he is being assaulted is entitled tq - lisg * reasonable force to repel' • that -.assault ” Mr RrdtQeysgid-z-' : He said . that r 1 if it. had been an • unauthorised person unlawfully • pursuing, the vehicle and damaging it, it wqijld clearly be a case of asspqlt as “you cannot go ardupd' hashing cars.” ■The driver of the vehicle had not been told that he was being pursued by an authorised officer. H e might well haye believed that he was • being attacked by a poacher.. :