Chase v The State

Country
Court
Seat of court
Lobatse
Court jurisdiction
Date of opinion
1990
Abstract

The appellant was convicted by a magistrate of the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy contrary to section 82 (1) and (2) (b) of the Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01) (1973 Rev.). The magistrate found that the appellant came into possession of four elephant tusks lawfully, but failed to report his possession of them to the relevant authorities as required by section 82 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act. On appeal against conviction and sentence, counsel for the appellant contended that, since the trial magistrate had found the appellant's initial possession of the tusks lawful, he could not be guilty of unlawfully possessing them by keeping them. Held that section 82 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act requires a person who comes into possession of a government trophy to report it immediately to a district office, police station or to a game officer, game scout or game guard. Failure to report its possession forthwith is an offence. In the instant case, once the appellant admitted that the elephant tusks were found on him and that he had kept them, for about five weeks, he was in breach of section 82 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act which required him to report his possession forthwith. The trial magistrate was therefore justified in convicting him.

Language of document
English
Reference number
1990 BLR 67 (HC)
Charges
Unlawful possession of government trophy
Money value
P 8024
Transnational
No
Decision
The chief magistrate had found as a fact that the appellant came into possession of the tusks lawfully but held that his failure to report his possession of them to the relevant authorities mentioned in section 82 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act made him guilty of unlawfully possessing them. The conviction of the appellant was attacked on the ground that, since the learned magistrate had found that the appellant's initial possession of the tusks was lawful he could not be guilty of unlawfully possessing them by keeping them. His attack was based on the judgment of Hayfron-Benjami C.J. in State v. Dube. The Judge differentiated between the two Acts which were in question and held that section 82(1) of the Act was clear, there was a need to report possession.
Appealed
Yes
Penalty
Fine: P 200
Court cases cited
State v. Dube, High Court (Criminal Review Case No. 38 of 1981), unreported
Legislation cited
Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01) (1973 Rev.)
Criminal Procedure and Evidence Act (Cap. 08:02)
Precious and Semi-Precious Stones (Protection) Act (Cap. 66:03) (1973 Rev.)