In the lower court, accused 1 and 2 were convicted of count 1, contravening sections 1,30(1)(b), (30)(1)(c), 85, 89 A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended read with ss 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977. Accused 5 was convicted of the first alternative to count 1 – Possession of game meat contravening s 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1975. The judge queried the learned magistrate whether considering count 1 and first alternative to count 1 is not a duplication of charges. In determining whether a duplication of convictions has occurred, the Judge used the single intent test where a man commits two acts of which each, standing alone, would be criminal, but does so with a single intent and both acts are necessary to carry out that intent. The judge held that it was a misdirection by the court a quo to convict the accused persons of the offence of hunting huntable game in respect of accused 1 - 2, possession of game meat in respect of accused 5 and trespassing as this amounted to a duplication of convictions. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on count 3 could be allowed to stand and were set aside. The judge therefore ordered that (a) the conviction and sentence on count 1 (one) and 2 (two) were confirmed and (b) the conviction and sentence on count 3 (three) were set aside in respect of all accused persons.