Tuesday, 26th August 2008
Hunters' federation official guilty of trapping-related charges
A senior official of the hunters' federation, Carmel Farrugia, has been fined €349.40 by the Court of Criminal Appeal after he was found guilty of having encouraged or assisted another person to violate a police order to stop trapping birds.
The incident happened on November 26, 2006 at l-Għadira ta' San Rafflu, near Kerċem. The Magistrates Court had originally found Mr Farrugia together with another hunter Paul Grech, not guilty of tying to trap a protected species of bird and disobeying police orders.
Mr Grech alone was found not guilty of relapsing and Mr Farrugia was found not guilty of having assisted another person to violate a police order, due to lack of evidence.
The Appeals Court, presided over by Mr Chief Justice Vincent De Gaetano, said that although it believed that Mr Farrugia had not gone to the site to trap birds, he had gone there as an official of the hunters' federation to investigate a complaint by Mr Grech over the actions of the police. The court said that Mr Farrugia's presence for almost two hours at a place where nets had been put up, manifestly against the law, without him doing anything to draw attention to this violation of the law, as well as his attitude towards the police, particularly when he told Mr Grech not to dismantle the nets as ordered by the police, rendered him guilty of having assisted or encouraged Mr Grech to violate regulations.
The Court also found Mr Grech guilty of trying to trap a protected bird and relapsing, overturning the original judgment, and fined him €931.74.
RSS
Comments
So we are back to square one and this was my first comment : 'I don't agree with you when saying that Mr Grech was enjoying his legitimate pastime. If his activity was legitimate he wouldn't have been found guilty and fined'. I leave it to the readers to decide if mentioning the first Court hearing (something that even YOU didn't mention in that same comment), would make any difference to my comment. First Court hearing or not, Mr Grech has now been found guilty of an illegality whilst pursuing his pastime.
I honestly feel that factual arguments are often being ignored by the anti-lobby. Picking on a couple of words to comment on and leaving the actual argument undealt with is not what one expects from grown-ups.
Birdwatchers don't make any distinction between game or not, they are all birds, so just the same, if you shoot Turtle Doves or Thrushes you are depriving me of seeing these species alive. But again, I accept the fact that this is done legally so I can't stop you. And since legal hunting is limited to relatively few species, yes I do agree that it is mainly the illegal element that ruins my chances but it also ruins your chances. What I can’t accept is that law abiding hunters make it sound as if hardly any illegalities take place when just a few years back it was the norm and now, although decreasing, is still rampant and is still witnessed by many. As for not shooting in the afternoon from Sept 15 to Sept 30, I don’t agree that it was done to accommodate birdwatchers. It is obvious that the idea is so that it is easier to control poachers. As I said, the illegal element is ruining even your chances. I am in favour of bird protection so obviously I embrace such a decision but, from a law abiding hunter’s view, I can see your point.
My legal shooting in the afternoon from Sept 15 to Sept 30 has been made illegal to accommodate birdwatchers like yourself.
As for your comment"So you are the one who is actually messing up with my rights"
For your information law abiding hunters shoot at birds that are legally allowed to be shot. Are you now saying that your right to watch them is being ruined thanks to legal shooting. Law abiding hunters do not shoot protected species stop confusing the issue
Its easy to say you recognize the right to hunt. putting what you say in practice is another matter.
My advantage over what you practice is that whilst enjoying birds no less than a birdwacher. I also enjoy the occassional dove, woodcock or quail. Guess this gives me more satisfaction than just watching
It is the illegal element that ruins your chances.
Your right to hunt made illegal? I thought hunting will start 1st September. The difference is that the birds I watch you can shoot but those you shoot I can't enjoy alive. So you are the one who is actually messing up with my rights and not the other way round. But just the same I accept the fact that law abiding hunters can practice their hobby legally, because it is within the law and you cannot stop anyone who is legally doing something. Is it so difficult to understand?
@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
I’m still waiting for you to admit that Mr Grech who was found guilty and even fined, was not pursuing his pastime legally. I myself admitted that it was not a straight forward case and probably Mr Grech wasn’t even aware that he was doing something illegal. There you see, I am being more than fair. So is it so difficult for you to say yes, he was found guilty of breaking the law? How can I believe that you are defending only law abiding hunters when you cannot even admit that this person who was found guilty by the court was actually guilty?
In your last comment you even went as far as intimating that I defend law-breaking hunters. HOW DARE YOU!! I have always made it very clear that I defend LAW-ABIDING HUNTERS and whenever I comment, I express my personal views without any hidden agenda. This seems to worry you quite a lot. You have to accept that there are individuals who, although not being hunters themselves, are not on your side. Only then will you be able to discuss the topic of hunting without hurling unfounded accusations.
How right you are and thank you for saying it.
"you have the right to shoot at birds, I have the right to see them alive. "
Your right is being respected whilst mine has been made illegal.
This is the whole point. If you do not agree with hunting why waste your time with recognizing the right to practice it. your argument makes no sense.
If you recognize the right than you are automatically agreeing with it. What you cannot get yourself to do is accepting it.
Re government promises. Any promise a Government makes and fails to keep is shameful and to be condemned by all. And yes if the Spring Ban was the other way round, i would back you. Since I believe in principals and anyone cheated would have my backing. This is what you seem to lack.
Further more, if we both had to look into a mirror to address ourselves there would be a big difference. Whilst you will see yourself, all hunters and trappers (used to be law abiding but now everything goes) as well as the whole Maltese population, I will see only myself as I always speak only on my behalf. So please don’t try to force your traits on others.
Just because I recognize the right of law abiding hunters to practice their hobby, that doesn’t mean that I agree with hunting. I’ve always said that I am against hunting so how do you pretend that I should support hunters for their quest for justice? If it was the other way round, and the government promised the ban of spring hunting and didn’t keep his promise, would YOU back me up? After all, just as much as you have the right to shoot at birds, I have the right to see them alive.
I never tried to hide the fact that it wasn't a straight forward case. How could I? Even reading the article it says that he was originally found not guilty. I was just pointing out that I did not agree with part of your first comment, in which after all, you never even mentioned the first hearing. But just to make you happy, OK I admit that it wasn't a straight forward case, but that doesn't change anything. He was still not pursuing his pastime legitimately , something which YOU haven't admitted yet.
Sylvana, you argue just for the sake of arguing and it is YOU who end up playing with words. The fact that this person was found innocent first time round only shows that it was not a straight forward case. But this doesn’t change the fact that NOW he was found guilty and fined and so he was not pursuing his pastime legitimately and nothing you say will change that.
Far from talking on behalf of hunters, trappers and Maltese citizens, my comment only highlighted what a respectable citizen expects from his Government!
Obviously, you have conveniently chosen to refrain from answering my other questions.
So according to you once the government promised you nothing, what he promised to others doesn't interest you.
All hunters were guaranteed the continuance of hunting in spring by our dear Government. Now if any decide to hunt next spring they are considered as criminals.
How right you are. Who cares as long as we don't hunt then you're happy.
I would have liked to hunt this September afternoon especially for quail during the last two weeks. My working hours do not allow me time to hunt in the mornings due to the hour lost to summertime. so that's another two weeks of my legal hunting gone.
So Richard your reporting illegalities with the help of your foreign disciples has been given preference to my legal hunting again thanks to our dear Government.
"Nobody can stop you from hunting as long as you are doing it legally" indeed no body can, other than a Government that makes legal hunting illegal.
Stop playing the fool and recognize the rights of legal hunters.
WOW you are not only speaking in the name of all hunters and trappers now but also in the name of ALL Maltese citizens. Don't you think that that is a bit too pretentious? Well that question has already been asked to you before by others so….nothing new.
Your reasoning reminded me of that old saying: I am ok, f... you Jack!!
Mr. RCZ, how have you chosen to ignore the decision of the first Court while considering and highlighting only the Appeals Court decision? This type of attitude on your part has always prompted me to criticise your arguments. Please, do try to be fair in your comments.
For your information, during last year's raptor camp, only illegalities were reported. So what's wrong with that? I just can’t understand why a law abiding hunter like you should find a problem with this. Nobody can stop you from hunting as long as you are doing it legally. As for what the government promised to hunters, well I am not a hunter so he never promised me anything.
@Sylvana Zarb Darmanin
No Sylvana, I’m not seeing the glass as half full, I’m seeing things as they are. This man was eventually found guilty and fined so definitely his activity was illegal. Be it due to lack of information or whatever but just the same he was not pursuing his pastime legitimately.
If your memory serves you right you will recall that apart from guaranteeing no change to hunting when Malta joins the EU. Our dear Government also guaranteed the continuance of spring and autumn trapping.
So for all intents and purposes what Paul Grech was practicing was nothing more than what the PN promised he could do legally for the rest of his and his ancestors life.
I am sure you will agree with me that what you term as illegitimate was rendered illegitimate by the incompetence of the PN. Foolishly enough, (or very wisely) whilst guaranteeing both these pastimes. It's trusted negotiator Savior Balzan negotiated the phasing out of trapping and a botched up reference to the use of a derogation for spring hunting.
if indeed you respect the legal hunter and trapper as you say you do, you would support them in their quest for justice. However you are more intent on participating in raptor camps and the vile trappers witch hunt Birdlife has prepared for this autumn.
If indeed your intentions are honest you would admit that legal hunting and trapping are insignificant to Europe's birds.
I don't agree with you when saying that Mr Grech was enjoying his legitimate pastime. If his activity was legitimate he wouldn't have been found guilty and fined.
My dictionary states, "Poacher- someone who catches and kills animals illegally." Catching is also including trapping, therefore this signifies that ILLEGAL trapping is poaching. Poaching is a criminal offence, parking your car incorrectly is a traffic violation. The two are immiscible, and worlds apart! Besides, sittings of the two are held in different court rooms to begin with. Where cases regarding hunting are heard in the criminal court, unlike the local tribunal sittings that deal on traffic offences. I'm sorry Mr. Gatt, but I think your point does not stand. I believe harsher penalties should be handed over to poachers because they are destroying the hobby of the few remainder hunters who are extremely corteous to the general public, and behold the law.
I urge these individuals to acquaint themselves with the case in point before starting to blurt out accusations. As Mr. Mifsud Bonnici rightly put it, Mr. Farrugia was taking an interest in a case where clear interpretation was lacking.
On the other hand, these same individuals conveniently opt to ignore facts and documentation by Government and EU officials assuring hunters of their continued enjoyment of their traditional pastime. Mr. Finch, where would you clasify this - as a VIOLATION or a CRIMINAL activity?!
I congratulate Mr. Lino Farrugia for defending the interest of one of his members whilst the latter was enjoying his legitimate pastime. I assure Mr. Farrugia that he surely enjoys the backing and support of all the federation's members and their families.
The court acknowledges that he was not on the site to trap birds, but as stated his presence was purely to investigate a complaint by one of its members. a complaint arising after persistent misinterpretation of regulations by the police. Unfortunately more often than not due to the inconsistency of hunting regulations this is a very common occurrence.
Mr. Farrugia should be commended for taking a personal interest in problems encountered by its members.The appeals court decision reversing an original judgment of not guilty is proof enough of the uncertainty of this purported "crime".
Keep up the good work Lino. Don't let these petty comments discourage you. You have the backing of all responsible hunters.
Also ignorance of the law is not a valid defence. You should know the laws and regulations as apply to whatever activity you do. It is not up to the police or government to come and tell you what they are and when changes are made. - You are adults (supposedly) so take responsibility for your actions.
I hope they won't think they are victims of another injustice as the poor Queen may get another letter from them. Ha-ha!
Still she can always give it the vertical filing treatment as possibly happened with the previus one!
@ Chris Finch, should your driving license should be revoked when you get a parking ticket? In the context of this case, the analogy is perfect. This is not a massacre, or poaching, or hunting or trapping out of season. This is a case of interpretation of confusing and illogical regulations introduced willy-nilly as usual. I recall that, when the law was changed for shotguns to have a maximum of 3 cartridges, I had to find out about it IN THE FIELD thanks to other hunters. The authorities NEVER informed hunters on an individual basis (unlike the empty and false promises before the EU referendum, when we all received several letters signed by the current President of Malta himself!)
@ Joe Camilleri. What is the relevance of Tolga Temuge and Greenpeace? I can't follow your logic.