It wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that the hunt couldn't pursue a civil case against the pilot independantly of the prosecution of whoever shot the drone down, especially if they can get the landowner onside.
This whole situation is a mess, if you ask me, as there is the
potential for all of the following mix of criminal and civil prosecutions, just based on the accounts in the original story:
- Illegal activities during a hunt
- Unsafe discharge of a firearm
- Criminal damage
- Assault (the story mentions a physical confrontation later in the day)
- Trespass (on the ground and in the air, by multiple persons)
If you look at the footage (
link to story containing it), it does appear that the drone was being flown according to the drone code. I had wondered about that since a shotgun at 50m+, let alone taken upwards, is a pretty good/lucky shot. Also, since multiple people on the ground appear unaware of the drone until someone points it out, I doubt they'll have much of trespass case because of Griffith's ruling in the post above, but that would be up to a judge if it came to it.
Frankly though, given the highly suspicious looking activities in the footage, I doubt the hunt is going to want this anywhere near a courtroom, criminal or civil. Looks very much to me that the shooter managed not only to land a shot on the drone, but one into their own foot as well.