Mark Walter (62) says he tracked a deer over several properties before illegally shooting it. Photo / Robb Kidd
Mark Walter (62) says he tracked a deer over several properties before illegally shooting it. Photo / Robb Kidd
There will be a new chapter in a neighbourly poaching saga as a judge's hunt for the truth continues.
Mark Walter, 62, was due to be sentenced at the Dunedin District Court yesterday after last month pleading guilty to a charge of unlawful hunting.
But Judge David Robinson said therewas a huge disparity between the defendant's version of events and what the victim called the "cold-blooded murder" of a cherished family pet.
Teresa Dynes, who was given "Dansey" at 3 weeks old in 2016, said there was no chance the deer could have escaped the Ocean View paddock she shared with six sheep.
Walter had asked for permission to hunt on her property last year and she told the Otago Daily Times she had firmly declined.
She said she specifically told the defendant about Dansey's presence.
But Walter denied that conversation had taken place.
His counsel, Joe O'Neill, told the court yesterday that his client had been lawfully hunting what he believed was a feral animal on a neighbour's land and began tracking it.
That animal had leaped over several fences to the Dynes property where Walter shot and butchered it, he said.
"You've got to be a hunter to know: sometimes you do get into chase mode and make decisions you regret later," Walter previously told the ODT.
Dynes said a few days after Dansey was shot on November 11, she went searching for her and found thick patches of the hind's hair, which led to areas of blood, then the grisly discovery of the gut bag and entrails the poacher had left behind.
"It was honestly the worst sight ever. I will never get that vision out of my mind," she said.
Judge Robinson said he needed to hear evidence to determine whose version to accept, which could ultimately make a significant difference to the penalty Walter faced.
Unlawful hunting carries a maximum term of two years' imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.
The judge told police maps and photos of the site would be useful for his determination.
"If it was patently obvious this was a pet deer, it's a more serious offence than tracking a deer across properties," he said.
The disputed-facts hearing will take place in May.
