[ad_1]
A well-known lawyer from the capital, his friend a policeman from Ukmerg otros and two other friends of the two – hunters from the local club “L “nas” – got stuck in the trunk of the van. One of the latter, admitting that it was he who fired the fatal shots of the four people mentioned, was the first to be tried. The hunter, who did not shirk his responsibility, rushed with his lawyer to defend his companions: that neither the officer nor the lawyer participated in the hunt.
The first court case in this incident has revealed almost all the behind the scenes of this scandalous hunt.
The scandalous deer hunt in the Ukmergė district, the consequences of which have been the subject of many and varied investigations, is becoming increasingly evident over time.
Understand instantly
- Late at night during the raid in the Ukmergė district. Officials from the Panevėžys Wildlife Protection Inspectorate stopped the SUV, which was used by 4 people from different family farms, without meeting the requirements of the quarantine conditions. Two people hunted that night in the Ukmergė district. members of the hunting club “Lėnas”, the other two persons: Ukmergė district police officer E.Balčiūnas and lawyer L. Judickas living in Vilnius.
- A male red deer died from 2 shots in the trunk of the car.
- Hunting Rules violations alone have resulted in two separate cases: one against gun hunter G. Aniūnas and the other against three other people in the SUV where the prey was transported.
The first case related to this incident, already examined in the Vilnius Regional District Court, revealed almost everything behind the scenes of this scandalous hunt. The truth of whether everything was in fact as narrated and recorded in the original documents has yet to be confirmed by the judges and various investigators in their fields.
Drawbacks and patrol crew
15 minutes recalls that the intriguing story in this story is related to an episode in which a service car marked by local police patrols stopped next to a car carrying a drunken deer. Police did not check the suspected criminals, did not arrest them, and, as can be seen in a press release issued by the Department of the Environment (AAD), simply warned hunters of the ongoing conservation raid:
This gesture did not help one country, it could seriously offend another. In other words, the hunted deer transporters no longer had the time and opportunity to avoid arrest because they were already in the spotlight of the inspectors at the time.
At that time, the leaders of the Ukmergė police officers conducted an official internal investigation: the Immunity Board of the Vilnius County Police Chief Commissariat announced that it was conducting an official inspection.
Photo by Victoria Savicka / Police
The first protocols of violations of this detention were drawn up by officials of the Panevėžys Wildlife Protection Inspectorate during the raid.
Furthermore, as is well known, there are a number of restrictions on communication during quarantine, which also led to the consideration of the responsibility of the detainees in this particular case. The mere fact that 4 members of different family farms were driving in the same environment was an obvious violation. In addition, a logical question arose from which lawyer L. Judickas, who is in the capital for entertainment purposes, is in another municipality, the Ukmergė district.
However, the main legal accusations, not to mention the moral aspects, in this story relate to environmental violations and damage to nature. That is why the AAD filed two separate cases of administrative misconduct against detainees. By the way, when it comes to damage to wildlife, which is also measured in money, most of the damage has already been rushed to be compensated, which can be considered an extenuating circumstance in court.
Most of the damage done to nature has already been immediately compensated, which is an extenuating circumstance.
The first, separated from the others, Giedrius Aniūnas, a member of the hunting club “Lėnas”, appeared before the court. Emphasizing many times that a resentful mistake had been made, which he sincerely regrets, the 52-year-old said that he could tell the court, without fault or embellishment, anything that was done in the Ukmergė district on that fateful night.
Penalties and damages
At that time, the AAD lawyer working on the other side of the barricades in the present case exposed the position of his authority, which resulted in severe punishment of the hunter. If we say domestic, so that it does not appear small.
That is, if the court finds G.Aniūnas guilty, it intends to impose a fine for violations. Also, as required by law, hunting equipment must be confiscated; in this particular case it is not a cheap rifle with an optical sight. Another painful sanction for every hunter is unavoidable: the prohibition of this activity for at least one year (maximum, five years). Finally, as suggested by the representative of the AAD, the court should set a period within which the person subject to administrative responsibility could pay the remaining part of the estimated amount of damage to nature (1,134.7 euros).
VIDEO: Court G. Aniūnas after a scandalous hunt
During the hearing, Remigijus Ramanauskas, representative of the institution that drew up the protocol in this case, had to immediately withdraw one of the 3 charges against G. Anniūnas.
The Chief Specialist of the Panevėžys Administrative Cases Division of the Legal Department of the Department of Environmental Protection under the Ministry of the Environment was quick to clarify that the protocol on violation of hunting rules on the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and / u another to another person. G.Aniūnas was the main shooter, but that night the hunting leader status belonged to another member of the “Lėnas” club: Aleksas Gečiauskas. The latter completed all the necessary documents for the hunt and remained responsible for the formalities that had not been completed. In this case, according to article 290 of the ANK. It was desired that Part 1 G. Aniūnas be punished for “violation of hunting rules in the territory of the Republic of Lithuania and (or) other legal acts regulating hunting”, but this point should be redirected to the case of A Gečiauskas.
Therefore, G.Aniūnas had to explain the other two violations: the illegal hunting of the deer and its illegal transport.
Understand instantly
- ANK 290 p. 7 d. establishes that the transformation or transport of an illegally hunted animal carries a fine of between 800 and 1,800 euros.
- Article 290 of the Code 8 d. regulates that hunting an animal over which the person with the right to hunt (hunter) has no right or the transport or processing of a licensed animal hunted illegally carries a similar fine (800-1800 Eur).
15 minutes The hearing observed in the case revealed how two hunters from Lėno met in the same company with a lawyer from Vilnius and a policeman from Ukmergė, why it is tried to say that these latter men did not participate in the hunt, formally or effectively, and a plan upheld by hunter friends: how they would have dealt with an illegally hunted deer if environmentalists hadn’t caught the crew on the way to the so-called beast.
[ad_2]
