I agree with the verdict. Sounds like he made an honest mistake, the man who was shot was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I'm completely shocked by this verdict - he fired at something in the dark when he didn't even know what it was. He's gone against the guidelines from the British Association of Shooting and Conservation regarding night shooting - you shouldn't fire when you can only see what you believe to be an animals eyes, you should wait until you're sure that you can see the outline of their body too. I really don't understand how they could find him not guilty under these circumstances - he obviously didn't take the necessary precautions, and as a result of his negligence he nearly killed a man.
It seems then that civil action would in this case be appropriate. Being shot, whether accidentally or not, is neither pleasant nor convenient. I agree entirely that a prosecution would be inappropriate.
how can you be prosecuted if you do not know what you have done is wrong