Reserved judgment — killing wild animal without authority of owner of land — hunting without authority of owner of land — poaching — "hunt or kill" — strict presumption — burden of proof — Wild Animal Control Act 1977, ss 2, 8(2), 38 & 39(1) — Criminal Procedure Act 2011, s 133 — Valenski v Conservator of Forests CA 39/85, 1 November 1985 — Bevin v Police HC Hamilton AP18/87, 21 May 1987 — Terry v Police [2019] NZHC 2517 — Campbell v Police [1990] 3 NZLR 9. The defendant faced charges of killing a wild animal on land without the permission of the owner of the land, and hunting on land without the permission of the owner of the land under the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 ("the Act"). He had been caught on motion-sensor cameras showing him on private land, dressed in camouflage gear, armed with a gun and carrying the head of a fallow stag. Further footage from the following day showed the defendant again on the private land, dressed and equipped for hunting. The defendant denied the charges, arguing that he had in fact been hunting and had shot the stag on neighbouring land where he did have permission to hunt; the stag had then run onto the neighbouring property where the defendant followed it to finish the kill and to retrieve his dog. He had then taken the stag's head for trophy purposes. The following day he had again entered the private property, but only to retrieve his dog. Section 8(2) of the Act prohibits any person from hunting or killing or having in their possession any wild animal. Section 2 of the Act defines "hunt or kill" as "hunting or searching for any wild animal, and killing, taking, trapping, capturing, having in possession [...] any such animal." Section 38 creates a strict presumption that where a person in found on land where wild animals are with a firearm or dog (or other hunting equipment) in their possession, they are presumed to be hunting and must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they were in the area without intent or fault. The Court found that the evidence showed that the defendant had indeed hunted and killed the stag on the private property. The Court also rejected the explanation that he had entered the property the following day solely to retrieve his dog, and found that he had in fact been hunting. The Court found both charges proved. Judgment Date: 5 June 2020