This a criminal appeal against the decision of the magistrate court in terms of which the appellant was convicted of contravening s 17(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992 (No. 28 of 1992) and was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment. The allegation against the appellant was that he and another person, Motanalo Nkape as co-accused, had without a license as required by law, hunted and killed two rhinoceroses between 19 and 23 October 2003 valued at P400 000. His co-accused was acquitted. The appellant who alone was convicted appealed against both conviction and sentence on the ground that the evidence provided by the State showed it was the State police officers who implicated him in the crime by planting the horns in the crime venue, his sentencing was excessive and should have been fine based instead of custodial sentencing. The Court reviewed the case and found that the evidence ( testimony of witnesses) sufficiently tied the accused to the offence. The court found there were no mitigating circumstances to warrant a softer sentencing. The conviction and sentencing was thus confirmed.
Country
Court
Type of court
Seat of court
Francistown
Court jurisdiction
Date of opinion
2005
Abstract
Language of document
English
Reference number
[2005] BWHC 94
Charges
Hunting and killing of two rhinoceroses between 19th and 23rd October 2003 valued at P 400,000 in contravention of s 17(2) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992 (No. 28 of 1992).
Species
Money value
P 400, 000
Transnational
No
Decision
The Court rejected the argument of the defence counsel that the punishment proscribed by the Law was not mandatory. The Court in return stated that the clear intention of the Parliament was to ensure that unlawful hunting and killing of rhinos should be more severe than any other protected animal. In addition, the Court's decision was that the testimony of the accused's daughter corroborates his confession to the officers and sufficiently ties him to the crime. Furthermore, the offence of killing two rhinos was grave and his mitigating circumstances of being a single parent, first time offender and 56 years old is not compelling enough to elicit a lesser sentencing. This led to the Court confirming the conviction and sentencing.
Appealed
Yes
Penalty
Imprisonment: 8 years Confirmed on Appeal
Court cases cited
Ntsimane Seitshiro v The State, Criminal Appeal No 7/2000
Batshomafika v the State, Criminal Appeal No. F48/2000
Ntetu v The State [1997] BLR 278
Edwin Seja v The State, Cr. App No.116/89
Re-Attorney-General’s Submission: State v Dinoko[1989] BLR 619 (CA)
Legislation cited
Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992 (No. 28 of 1992)
Criminal Procedure Act
Evidence Act
Interpretation Act