Marine Park Sanctuary zones - Mate Busted for driving through

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

...wrong....it's the same as a speeding camera....if you want your day in court , don't pay the fine.

---

Correct...but in court, they must provide evidence that supports the elements of the offence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

If they have the photo etc, you have to defend not the other way around.
.

---

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordie

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

---

If one were to attend to this in court, would/are you be able to see the "alleged" evidence first?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chops

If one were to attend to this in court, would/are you be able to see the "alleged" evidence first?

---

The evidence provided thus far will be the allegation and details of offence on the expiation notice. If it goes to trial, there has to be full disclosure from the prosecution to the accused, which is where copies of all statements and evidence will be provided prior to trial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by garrycol

Well if he wins - claim the costs.

---

Bear in mind....IF one wins...one doesn't always get the full costs returned. Mate fought a speeding ticket, cost $10k to defend...he won...but only recouped about $7k in costs.

For sure you will only get back what are considered reasonable costs not actual costs - they are not going to recompense you the costs of a QC when a solicitor straight out of law school would suffice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordie

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

---

yeah, I think I got that arse about.....what you said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gordie

There you go...you just said it...he who alleges must prove...they must have the photo showing the offence occurring, or statements from those who saw it happen. Same as a speed camera, no photo, no offence.[thumbsupbig]

---

I Very much doubt that the fisheries officers would charge anyone without reasonable proof of an offence, They are not Stupid despite what others may think.
Maybe going to court and pleading the case May get you off or lessen the penalty, It may also harm your prospects as well [bigwhistle]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

I Very much doubt that the fisheries officers would charge anyone without reasonable proof of an offence, They are not Stupid despite what others may think.
Maybe going to court and pleading the case May get you off or lessen the penalty, It may also harm your prospects as well [bigwhistle]

---

There are about 3 courses of action:
1.I am guilty and I will pay it
2. I am guilty but I will go to court and try to get out of it on technicalities or get a reduced fine
3. I did not do it, feel wrongly accused and wish to fight it.

I, like you, fully support the work of fisheries, I detest and loathe poaching etc. If he did fish in a marine park, I am glad the law caught up with him. If he has been wrongly accused through human error(which even the best of law enforcers can be open to), then I totally understand his frustration at being wrongly accused.

Luckily we only have to face the fisheries and the courts if we poach in Australia, This is what can happen in Africa [bigwhistle]
Suspected poacher eaten by lions in South Africa