CrackThump wrote:Errrmmm... indulge me here please ( make me feel better ) .
Lets say you have a less experienced hunter still learning the ropes on live targets. This person does have the animals welfare at heart and a healthy desire to keep his license, abides by the hunting code of practice.
However, in the real world, aiming for the headshot he misses due to breeze or flinch or the animal moving and headshot turns into a shoulder shot. His first action is to close on the animal and deliver a followup shot to finish poor skip quickly.
My understanding from what i read is that this is appropriate action. Or am I wrong and it means "go directly to jail, do not pass the gunstore and do not ollect $200) .?
Crack I would have to do some serious research on it, but..
the onus is on the Prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. Exhibit 1, a dead roo with a hole in its chest and another (later one) in its head would appear to establish its case. However most criminal jurisdictions have something that makes accident a defence to a charge. So the later hole in the head could establish the defence case that skippy failed to oblige and jumped at the wrong moment, you then seeing the distressed roo immediately put it out of its misery. Further however, and this is the “beauty” of the law, is that for some offences, the defence of accident is specifically excluded.
So may depend on exactly which state skippy was in when he died.