Poaching case thrown out as PC left fishing for evidence

SUSPECTED poachers fishing for salmon were cleared yesterday after a police officer admitted he could not tell the difference between worms and maggots.
Greig Johnson and David McKenzie, both 24, of Johnstone, Renfrewshire, were accused of attempting to take salmon from the Black Cart river at Kilbarchan, without legal right or permission, on 25 September last year.

Police had been alerted by angling club officials. However, the officer sent to investigate knew nothing about fishing.

Yesterday, the pair walked free from Paisley Sheriff Court, when Sheriff Neil Douglas found the charge against them not proven. He added: "It seems very strange that you should send out someone to investigate a matter such as this who hasn't the first idea what they are looking for".

Giving evidence, PC Andrew MacLeman conceded he knew little about the sport. He admitted he had no idea what bait might be used to attract different types of fish or that weights would be required to carry bait into the water when casting.

Community officer PC MacLeman had told the court that the men were dressed as fishermen and had rods assembled with lines extended and hooks attached.

But when asked what type of hooks had been used, he said he did not know and had not taken them as evidence as they "seemed quite dangerous".

The court heard that the accused had portable stools with them to sit on.

Asked by Mark Lovie, the defence agent, if he had ever seen salmon fishers using stools, PC MacLeman replied that he had no idea if they did or did not sit to fish.

It was alleged that Johnson and McKenzie had "attempted to fish for or take salmon" from the river at a spot 200 metres west of Milliken Road.

Both men denied the offence and claimed they had been coarse fishing on the day in question – for pike.

William Halliday, a water Bailiff and official of the Castle Angling Club, who raised the alarm, said signs had been erected on the riverbank stating clearly "No fishing without a permit".

He explained the club leased the fishing rights from the Crown Estates, paying £1,000 annually over a five-year period.

Anyone can fish on the river on purchase of either day permits or season tickets. An adult would pay £40 for one-year membership and a day permit costs £8.

He was concerned about illegal fishing and acts of vandalism on the riverbank and had asked teh police to pay particular attention to the stretch of water between Johnstone and Kilbarchan.

Sheriff Douglas concluded there had been "evidence of an attempt to fish for something", but held that there was insufficient evidence to prove the accused had been attempting to fish for salmon.

"It seems very strange that you should send out someone to investigate a matter such as this who hasn't the first idea what they are looking for".

McLeman by name but Lemon by nature?

Come on Peter.

The legal begals could have tripped this officer or anybody else up on any number of things surely?

Was the angler useing a rod suitable for Salmon?

Was the line being used strong enough for Salmon?

Did he catch any Salmon?

What happened to fishing with intent?

"What happened to fishing with intent? "

O crumbs, Baz, don't bring that into it otherwise I could be held for many a rape charge for "Looking with intent."

Even worse, I have the apparatus for it too.

Edit - addendum - "I have the apparatus for it too", <u>but it wouldn't stand up in Court</u>. Just thought I'd get that in before you lot.

Yes but gentlemen; Do not forget ( NOT PROVAN ) They can and will take the two men in question back to court soon.

And the reason for this is Fishing without a permit.

"What happened to fishing with intent?"

The article didn't mention if the officer saw a bivvy or not.

Peter; The news papers only tells you so much as you know, also they don,t tell you everything. And that they add there little bits.

Also Peter YES Scottish law you can be charged with Intent.

Even if he were a fisherman his evidence of opinion would not be admissable unless held to be an expert witness.... the real mistake was in the officer's failure tocollar the tackled up rods and lines,keeping them 'as were' to show to someone who would be able to identify the likely quarry from the way they were rigged up. While a worm will catch a pike just as well as it will a Salmon the presence or lack of a wire trace for example might well have allowed the appropriate inference to be drawn, one way or the other.

Very true Evan. But I know that this is buy no means the end off this case.

My main questions would have been this If I was working for the Procurators Office

" Have we sufficient evidence for this matter to proceed. Have we dotted all the I's and crossed all the T's ? "

"Have we an "ExpertWitness who can advise us on this matter before we proceed further -its an unsual case chaps?

"Finally.... Who the hell let an inexperienced officer deal with this in the first place ????

"Anyone got any Painkillers ?"

" Case Closed M'lud !"

In short this was a badly prepared and presented case that should never have been brought and although under scottish law, it was still a waste of tax payers money to proceed on the information reported above

Spot on Evan if thier 'tackle had been seized' All the questions would of been answered.

They could of got just about any angler to inspect the tackle and probably know whether salmon were the intended target. If not then the case for salmon poaching wouldn't of gone to court.

A very badly prepared case on the side of the police.

surely if they were fishing with intent, they`d be after carp? (you beat me too it Peter)