Buzz off, this is a no-fly zone: Former Mingenew councillor Peter Gledhill fined after shooting girl’s drone

A trigger-happy former deputy shire president in the Mid West who shot a seven-year-old girl’s drone out of the sky has been brought back down to Earth in a courtroom, with a magistrate describing his actions as “outlandishly stupid.” The incident involving former Mingenew Shire councillor Peter John Gledhill launched a courtroom debate last week over privacy, firearms and whether drones count as flying pests. The 76-year-old appeared in Geraldton Magistrates Court last Thursday on one count of criminal damage or destruction of property and one count of inadequate storage of a firearm. The court was told that on April 13, a man and his seven-year-old daughter were hovering their drone about 100m in the air to capture footage of incoming storm clouds above Mingenew, when Gledhill fired two rounds from his 12-gauge shotgun at the flying object. The incident was reported, and police visited Gledhill’s home the following day where they found two live .22 calibre rounds near a gun cabinet. Gledhill was subsequently charged. The police prosecutor said the long-time local councillor and volunteer ranger, argued he thought the drone was invading his privacy and believed he was within his rights to defend his property. In support of Gledhill’s character, letters were presented to magistrate Matthew Walton from both the Mingenew shire president and CEO, alongside a certificate that stated Gledhill was authorised to shoot pests such as feral cats and birds. In rural Mingenew, that includes ravens, galahs, corellas — and, according to Gledhill, drones. His lawyer George Giudice said the shooting of pests was “not unusual” in the area, noting that “people are authorised to do this on occasions.” However, the magistrate quickly shut down attempt to classify the drone as wildlife. “Is it being argued that a drone is a bird or part of fauna?” Mr Walton asked Mr Giudice. “We have a clear distinction that a drone is not fauna, it’s not a bird, and it’s not a flying cat.” Mr Giudice admitted his client “realises he should not have done that,” adding that Gledhill had an otherwise spotless record. Mr Walton acknowledged the rural context of the incident. “Regional considerations do need to be taken into account . . . there are pests in the area which may as well be justification for him having firearms,” he said. But he didn’t let Gledhill off the hook entirely. “There may have been an assumption by Mr Gledhill that because he is a ranger, he has the right to shoot down this drone,” Mr Walton said. “In my view, it was outlandishly stupid. “It was clearly unreasonable to take this action. It is simply outrageous and it doesn’t matter if it’s in a regional area or not. The mismanagement of his firearms speaks for itself.” Due to Gledhill’s good character, lack of criminal record and letters of support, Mr Walton imposed a $750 fine and granted him a spent conviction. “This is not a trivial offence — the criminal damage especially,” Mr Walton said. “But I am satisfied that you are a person of good character and you won’t commit an offence of this type again.” On his way out of court, Gledhill assured Mr Walton he would pay the $1000 in drone repair costs.

Buzz off, this is a no-fly zone: Former Mingenew councillor Peter Gledhill fined after shooting girl’s drone

The No. 1 source of news for every West Australian

Everyday Digital

Everyday Digital + Weekend Papers