Hi Syd
If memory serves me right, I think there was another law case which found
that a shark was not an "animal" as legally defined (in old animal welfare
legislation?). Defendants' lawyers are usually able to advantageously
employ dictionary definitions and medieval case law that had a very
unscientific view of the animal kingdom. As an ex-lawyer, I am not going to
dispute that lawyers can be naughty and should be watched carefully, but one
of the competing rules of statutory interpretation holds that penalizing
laws should be read restrictively. The egg collectors benefited from that.
You and I might also appreciate it after our next Tax Office audit! (Joke -
hopefully!)
Of course, this may be new to Katarina in Sweden where all government
officials are assiduously fair and reasonable! Eller hur!
Cheers
Andrew Thelander
Author of "Last Birds"
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Syd Curtis
Sent: Saturday, 31 October 2009 9:59 PM
To: ;
Subject: Request for feathers and the law
Syd Curtis wrote:
...
Now at some stage it happened that a private individual was found to be in
possession of a substantial collection of eggs of native birds, for which
no permit had been obtained. Prosecution ensued.
However the lawyer for the defendant successfully argued in court that an
egg-shell is not an egg. Therefore his client was not in possession of any
eggs. Acquitted. Technically, no other decision was open to the court.
So the Act had to be amended to cover all such possibilities.
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
|
