5. R. v. Hackett, [2001] Nfld. P.C. File No. 1300A-1034 Fisheries officers found seven lobster traps in an area of the Humber Arm in Newfoundland. Attached to the traps were year-2000 lobster tags issued to Mr. Michael Hackett, Sr., father of the accused. The accused was the "designated fisher" under Mr. Hackett, Sr.'s licence. The lobster-fishing season had closed three days before, and these traps were outside the area in which the licence allowed the accused to fish for lobster. Hackett admitted the traps belonged to him, but said they had been stolen and put there by someone else. He said that s. 25(2) of the Fisheries Act, under which he was charged, was a "strict liability" offence. He argued that he should be acquitted on the basis of due diligence. He pointed to his regular checking of his lines, his steps to maintain the security of his traps, his manner of only attaching his tags to the traps when they were placed in the water, his removing the traps from the water over time rather than on the last day of the season, and his attempts to prevent poaching. The Crown argued that Hackett failed to show that he had acted with sufficient care to establish the defence of due diligence. He should have contacted fisheries officers as soon as he realized some of his traps had been stolen. a) Using the elements of a crime, explain the burden of proof on the Crown and the options available to Hackett. b) What is meant by "due diligence"? c) Should Hackett be found guilty of this offence? Explain