Definition of "fishing"

[Gazza]

....I've been in charter boats that regularly go through green zones to get to different areas of the reef - with lots of fish onboard.......

Fair comment Bugman , but as i mentioned (above?) too many witnesses too 'cola-berate' the FO's from laying a 'charge'



Regards
Gazza

[jaybee]

Gentlemen, the law in Australia stands "One is innocent until proven guilty" however, the exception was in Queensland during Joh's days "One is guilty until proven innocent" From my interpetation of what has been said here, we are going backwards, yet again.
cheers

[Gazza]

Gentlemen, the law in Australia stands "One is innocent until proven guilty" however, the exception was in Queensland during Joh's days "One is guilty until proven innocent" From my interpetation of what has been said here, we are going backwards, yet again.
cheers

What tha !!! JB....."tink bout dis"

no way ,backwards ever, forever and a day ......
Forwards,onwards & UPWARDS!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Splatttttt.......

[jaybee]

I was thinkin gazza, thinkin about the law and how we seem to be going back to Joh dayz.
cheers

[PinHead]

bring back Joh's days...at least the Govt was always in the black..unlike now..hell..they will be flat out buying enough red ink soon.

[jaybee]

now now pin, behave yaself, we is talkin law and interpretation not money to buy ink, damn i cant even afford ink for my printer now u mention it
cheers
joe.

[peterbo3]

Evening all,
The Law has a number of scenarios NOW where one is deemed guilty per se. Go through a speed camera or red light camera & the onus is on the registered owner of the vehicle to PROVE that they were not driving if that was the case. NO proof (mate has returned overseas) & you wear it.
The introduction of "on the spot fines" for fishing & boating offences will only become one more revenue stream.

[stilltryin]

If you want to follow the letter of the law there are two standards of proof in modern law.

For a criminal offence the matter has to be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and if any doubt exists or is raised and substantiated then the matter is thrown out...

The other one is for civil matters which requires a standard of proof of 'On the balance of probability'. this means that is a reasonable person would beleive it happened the way it is presented then you are found guilty.

Some still operate on the old english common law principle that 'might is right' so who cares if you did it, shoot em anyway......mmmm, might be something in that?????

[Gazza]

Evening all,
The Law has a number of scenarios NOW where one is deemed guilty per se. Go through a speed camera or red light camera & the onus is on the registered owner of the vehicle to PROVE that they were not driving if that was the case. NO proof (mate has returned overseas) & you wear it.
The introduction of "on the spot fines" for fishing & boating offences will only become one more revenue stream.

AHH Peter , 'video/time-stamped/evidence/actually-happened/photo/whatever'

Do you 'reallllly' believe "that system" ,can/could/would be adequately adapted for ALL "lock-it-up Zones"

i don't think sooooooo.......do you realllllly equate an 'offender' speeding, regardless of ownership of the car ,with a RecFisho fishing and 'travelling' thru a 'no-fish' zone.
I don't ,and neither should you

[Kerry]

Bugman,

Based on some instances here as long as 5 or more years ago perhaps things will pick up. Up until now one really had to go out of the way to find a green zone but there was one in particular here that got "agressive administration". One particular case rods/reels etc were requested to be passed over for "safe keeping" but generally one was harrased just for having a rod in overhead rod storage with reel attached, while simply parked up for lunch.

Now that all the coastal (28 of them) and other sections (completed in 2000/2001) are now in "controlled hands" one might expect the whole shooting match to be rolled up into a combined enity instead of the hotch potch of zones strung together since, what since about 1983 (or there abouts?).

Most are probably expecting some changes after the combined 2003 zoning plan is complete in line with legislation and the apparent capability to enforce that legislation, technical or otherwise as and if required.

Cheers, Kerry.

[PinHead]

"beyond reasonable doubt".."Probability"..damn..I just wanna fish..I have enough legaleese every day with contract negotiations...my theory is..if there is water..then I may have a cast in there..if the upholders of the law ask me to move on.then move on I will (after some discussion of course)

[Kerry]

Any legal people know why there were amendments made to the act to recognise the "Commonwealth Criminal Code" notion of "strict liability".

As I understand it, "Strict liability" reduces the standard of proof that is required to affect a prossecution ???

Cheers, Kerry.

[peterbo3]

Hi Gazza,
Simply used this as an example of one aspect. You are guilty until proven innocent.
As for no-go or no-fishing zones, in the 80's they were few & far between. Now they are prolific. Will GBRMPA only be satisfied when the entire area of the reef is closed to all but "non-invasive" type activities?

[stilltryin]

Kerry,

Some or most of the areas have been designated through commonwealth law and therefore rely on Commonwealth statutes and standards of proof for a prosecution although they can be tried in a local court.

[PinHead]

In ALL instances under Australian law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Peter, your example does not prove otherwise. The speed camera instance still gives you the option of defending the charge in a court of law where you are innocent until proven guilty.The is the same with any speeding fine or other on the spot fine..always have the right to fight it in court.