The court held that the appellants were protecting the lives of the cubs and as well as their legal interest in the survical of the cubs as the owners of the very expensive animals. The court reasoned that it was hard to imagine that the legal convictions of society would regard the observance of a transfer permit requirement, which in this case was impossible to obtain because of the age of the cubs, as a more important interest than that of the survival of the cubs, and their financila interest of their owners. The court held that the evidence of the veterinary surgeon who treated the cubs was crucial. The court held that confirmation of fact that this matter should have been treated as an emergency that would warrant exceptional treatment, is found in the NDPP’s decision not the charge the doctor because he acted in an emergency situtation. Thus this decision was in stark contrast to the conviction and sentencing of the appellants on the same circumstances, the same animals and the same Act and Ordinance. The court held that the appellants actions in attempting to protect the survival of the species, was not out of proportion to the interest infringed by their action, namely to prevent smuggling of which they were not suspected of. The court held that the appellants actions were justified and lawful and their defence of necessity had to succeed. The court held that the remaining charge of failure to report the births and deaths of the cubs within five working days, could not stand.