ILLEGAL GAME.

Waikato Times, Volume 114, Issue 19124, 8 December 1933, Page 6

ILLEGAL GAME.

SPORTSMAN’S APPEAL.

POSSESSION OF BLACK TEAL. QUESTION 'OF KNOWLEDGE. An appeal against the decision of Mr F. H. Levien, S.M., at Te Kulti, in convicting him for having two black teal in his possession, which are game protected by statute, was brought by George- Augustus Carter, public accountant, of Stratford, in the Supreme Court, Hamilton, this morning. James Dobson, chief ranger of the Auckland Acclimatisation Society was the respondent. Mr A. Coleman, of New Plymouth, appeared for the appellant, and Mr F L. G. West, of Auckland, for the respondent. Mr Coleman, outlining the circumstances. stated that Carter was one of a party .who commenced shooting grey duck 'over the Taharoa Lakes, near Kawhia, when the season opened on May i. On May 4 the appellant and a companion named Petrie left the camp, the bag of grey duck having been divided. While on the road between the lakes and Te Kulti they were accosted by the Acclimatisation Society’s ranger. At his request Carter produced his shooting license and emptied his bag. The contents were found to consist of grey duck, one black swan and two black teal. The latter were protected game and were not allowed to be -shot.' Unaware of Presence. “Our case is that on the facts Carter was unaware that the teal' were there and that therefoi’e he could not be held guilty,” added counsel. However, the magistrate at Te Kulti convicted the appellant, expressing the opinion that it was Immaterial whether he knew the teal were there. The defence raised was absence of mens rea, but it was treated by the magistrate as irrelevant.

: Mr Coleman submitted that the Act under which the appellant was convicted did not impose an absolute liability and the mens rea consisted of an absence of the power of volition.

His Honour: I am a member of the Acclimatisation Society. Does that make any difference in this case?

Mr Coleman; Not at all, sir. It should assist Your Honour in arriving at your decision. Mr Coleman said the appellant was convicted entirely on the legal aspect, without' the facts being decided. The question for His Honour was whether mens rea could be proved. Mr West contended that the only defence under the Act was for the appellant to show that he had lawful authority to have teal in his possession. He submitted the appellant could not do that. He quoted authorities to show that "negligent ignorance” was no defence. He argued that absence of power of volition applied only in the case of extreme infancy, complete drunkenness or lunacy. •* . After hearing legal argument His Honour reserved his decision.