Kirsten Mifsud was jailed for a year and fined €5,000 for shooting a bird of prey. Was he the unlucky guy caught at the wrong time or did he deserve the punishment?

Magistrate Francesco Depasquale said it was the court’s duty to give a clear message that breaking the law would be “severely punished” when condemning a hunter to jail.

He also remarked that Kirsten Mifsud’s actions had prompted the premature closure of the spring hunting season, which deprived law-abiding hunters of the enjoyment of their passion.

But while the magistrate was applying the sentence applicable under law when he put Mr Mifsud behind bars for a year, the judgment has fuelled debate as to whether the hunter has been made a scapegoat.

For sociologist Mark-Anthony Falzon the judgment is “unbelievable”.

Writing on his Facebook wall soon after it was handed down he said: “Have we considered the tremendous individual and social costs of imprisonment? Besides, to say that someone is to blame for collective punishment is the sort of argument a Nazi might come up with. This is absolutely terrible.”

Similar comments were made by others, who only two weeks ago voted No in a referendum that asked people whether they wanted to retain spring hunting.

But ornithologist Natalino Fenech differs. The injured bird, a kestrel, was shot in broad daylight and the hunter admitted to his friend that he was overcome by his passion to shoot, he says.

“I don’t believe the court should make anyone a scapegoat but the magistrate applied the law and I am not critical of this judgment,” he says.

Dr Fenech says enforcement of hunting regulations has improved over the past decade and abuse has been curtailed. But drawing from years of experience in the field, he argues such cases are always difficult for the police to prosecute. Many times the proof at hand, if any, is insufficient to secure a conviction in court.

Are we attributing less value to human life and more value to that of animals?

“We often hear of hunters being fined or handed down suspended sentences. This time the magistrate awarded a prison sentence and I am baffled by criticism of some who supported the No camp, who have described the judgment as an attempt to create a scapegoat.”

Hunter and economist Mark Bonello believes the judgment in the kestrel case was just and fair.

“As a hunter I am also frustrated at the low migration pattern of this season and dissatisfied with the quotas imposed on spring hunting, which are below the permissible numbers as per EU regulations, but this does not justify shooting at anything. If this man is trigger-happy then the sentence is just.”

But Mr Bonello does question the limelight hunting has been afforded over the years, which he believes has warped society’s priorities.

He says hunting legislation is very severe when compared to other crimes of a more serious nature such as overspeeding, which can potentially put human lives at risk.

Getting caught on a speed camera can land you a €75 fine, he says by way of comparison with the maximum fine of €5,000 for shooting a bird of prey.

“I am not saying hunting fines should go down but the seriousness of other crimes should be reflected in the severity of punishment,” he adds.

Mr Mifsud’s case has made headlines for obvious reasons: the injured bird landed in a school playground and came on the back of a handful of other incidents in the aftermath of a referendum.

But hunting illegalities have long captured popular imagination in part as a result of the efficient campaigns by conservation groups to track down and highlight abuse.

Whether this attention is warranted will always be subject to interpretation – hunting organisations will say this is the result of unjustified hype by anti-hunting lobbyists, while bird conservationists will argue it is hunters who have brought it on themselves.

This situation irks Mr Bonello. He says a news item involving the mugging of an old woman will hardly attract half the comments on news sites and action from society’s stakeholders, than would a story on hunting abuse.

“Are we attributing less value to human life and more value to that of animals?”

It is a feeling shared by many in the hunting community and beyond. TV presenter and political commentator Frank Psaila feels the punishment in the kestrel case is “exaggerated”.

On his Facebook wall he wrote: “I fear we have lost all sense of proportion.”

Dr Psaila says the hunter could have been punished by being given community work rather than a jail term. He also questions the Prime Minister’s drastic decision to close the season, in a bid to “satisfy everyone”. In this way good sense is lost, he argues.

Mr Mifsud may have very well been the unlucky bloke to commit a crime at a time when much of society is caught up in frenzy on hunting. But it is also a fact that legislators over the years have reacted to the clamour on hunting illegalities by harshening penalties.

Seeing those penalties being applied to the full, it seems, may have shocked many.

Birds subject to special protection

These birds are listed at law under what is known as Schedule Nine.

They are afforded the highest protection, which is reflected in the penalties.

• Mute swan

• Eurasian sparrowhawk

• Common buzzard

• Eurasian hobby

• Common kestrel

• Grey heron

• Long-eared owl

• European scops owl

• Barn owl

• Northern gannet

Crime and jail time

• Racial hatred: between six and 18 months jail

• Father who forces his daughter into prostitution: from three to six years

• Rape: three to nine years.

• Kidnapping a child: between 18 months and three years

• Grievous bodily harm: between three months and three years

• Simple theft: between one and six months

• Usury: a term not exceeding 18 months

kurt.sansone@timesofmalta.com