Man fined €1,500 after police seize 33 trapped birds

A 70-year-old man was fined €1,500 by a criminal court after being found guilty of bird trapping.

On 15 November 2023, Publius Vella was accused of hunting or trapping birds in the limits of Għajnsielem, keeping birds illegally, using birds as decoys without a registered identification rings, and for trapping on an unregistered and unapproved site.

The birds were not fitted with closed rings of the correct size for their species or the single-use rings issued by the Wild Birds Regulation Unit.

The prosecution explained that during a police patrol against illegal hunting and trapping in Triq id-Daħla tal-Għama, the police distinctly heard the sounds of songbirds. Upon searching the area, they found a trap with nets and birds.

The police said no one was present on site, but a mobile phone was found inside a nearby hunter’s den. A vehicle was also discovered nearby. Both the mobile phone and the vehicle were linked to the accused.

The police seized 33 birds in total and a casette with songbird sounds.

Vella claimed he had lost his mobile in the area and that his vehicle was parked there because he owned land nearby. He insisted he was not a trapper and did not hold a trapping licence.

However, Magistrate Jean Paul Grech, did not believe this recount of events. The court said that a lost mobile phone would not be neatly placed on a wooden pallet inside the den.

The court said that if the mobile phone was truly lost, the probability was such that the phone would have been found on the floor on some part of the field or in the vehicle nearby.

The accused also claimed that someone had probably found the phone and placed it in the den. The accused said he had no idea on who could have done so and he did not include this claim in his original statement to the police.

The court claimed that if someone had indeed stumbled upon the lost mobile phone, they would have left it in the den because they knew it belonged to the accused. It made no sense that someone would have found the mobile and placed it in a den which the accused had no connection to.

The court asked the accused: “If you have no connection to the nets and they belong to someone else, why would they place the mobile phone in the den?”. The accused had no answer to the question.

The court added that it could not believe Vella when he claimed he did not know who owned the den, given that he owned land right nearby and was present in the area daily. The court also stated that the den was equipped with lights, indicating that the accused frequented the area even during the night-time.

The police also noted that no other vehicles were observed parked nearby. The court said that from the footage, it is clear that the area is very secluded and for an individual to arrive there, a vehicle is required.

Therefore, since the only vehicle present at the site belonged to the accused, it was clear that although the accused was not found on the area during the inspection, there is no doubt that the accused was present where the trap and the birds were found.

The court concluded that all the evidence indicated that Vella had quickly hid himself when he realised the police had arrived in the area and in a panic, forgot his mobile phone behind in the den.

Therefore, Vella was found guilty of all charges and fined.  He was also banned from obtaining a hunting or trapping licence for two years.