The court held that if it is established that the appellant hunted and killed the animals in the game reserve, the burden shifts to the appellant to establish that he did not know that he was in the game reserve. The appellant thus has to establish on a balance of probabilities that he killed the animals on another piece of land. The court held that the appellant had not shown that he had killed the gemsbok elsewhere than in the game reserve. Thus the presumption is that he had killed them in that area.