The court held that as an observer PW1 (a game scout) could only testify to the fact that the demarcated lines were ”cut” but not to whether they conformed with the Statutiry instrument. Thus PW1’s evidence is that of hearsay and inadmissible. The court held that there was no evidence that established that the appellant had acted within the reserve area, which amounted to a contravention of section 7 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act. The court held that the statement that had been provided by PW1 was a confession that had not been confirmed. The court held that the onus rested on the prosecution to prove that the confession had been freely and voluntarily made. In addition, the defence was to be afforded an opportunity to cross-question. The court held that the evidence of the confession was a faulty restatement of what had been said by the PW1 in his evidence-in-chief. The court held that without the evidence, there could be no case against the appellant.