That is precisely why I asked that Mark. THe frogs were declared illegal 3 months AFTER their whereabouts were known.
MAF has no evidence to support the theory of an illegal importation, and no evidence was presented in court. They do however have evidence of the frog being imported into NZ decades ago, with recent sightings dating back to the 90s.
That means they can neither prove nor disprove the theory of an illegal import / smuggling.
Haisley then; it would appear WAS NOT in possession of unwanted organisms at the time. Seems like a frivolous case to me.
Personal feelings aside the case lacked legal and legislative backing and I'm sure any JP/Judge would have mentioned that.
Using that logic - if a breeder of say - rosellas sold some babies; only to later be told that MAF has declared the species unwanted ex-ante (post event), he would be found guilty?
Rubbish.