Appellants had been convicted for unlawful hunting upon a plea of guilty before a Subordinate Court. They had hunted 19 springbok and 1 gemsbok without a licence. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and were sentenced to pay fines of varying amounts. In addition, a large amount of biltong, some meat and some weapons and ammunition were ordered to be confiscated except the three motor vehicles belonging to one or other of the members of the hunting party. The notice of appeal appears to have been framed for the most part under a misapprehension, for it raises a number of points based on the non observance of the provisions of sec. 235(1) of the Criminal Procedure and Evidence Proclamation, Chapter 18, in that no evidence was led by the State to prove the actual commission of the offence and therefore these irregularities rendered the conviction of the appellant invalid. The appellant recognised that he was unable to properly advance any argument based on the failure of the State to lead evidence to establish the commission of the offence. He contended however that it was necessary as a matter of public policy and because of the peremptory provisions of section 235(1) A (i) that the Judicial Instruction should be followed faithfully. If there was any deviation or irregularity, a conviction based on a plea of guilty must be set aside whether or not the accused person had been prejudiced. In the present case, he pointed out that the Judicial Instruction had not been observed as: (a) The magistrate entered verdicts of guilty immediately after pleas of guilty had been given, instead of waiting until the accused had acknowledged the correctness of the prosecutor's summary of the facts before entering pleas of guilty and verdicts of guilty; (b) there was no note on the record that an explanation of their rights had been given to the accused; (c) it was the defending attorney and not the accused themselves who acknowledged the correctness of the summary by the prosecutor.