The appellants were convicted on a single count of the offence of hunting 2 duikers and 2 steenboks, without a licence contrary to Section 19(3) of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 28 of 1992. The appellants, during their trial, elected not to lead evidence, alternatively to call any witnesses. The appellants appealed their conviction on 2 grounds, namely, 1) that the prosecution failed to produce composite pieces of the animal’s skin at the hearing of the trial, and 2) that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the appellants. On ground 1, the prosecution held that the skins had been destroyed by maggots and as a result were not capable of being produced as evidence. The court found that the evidence provided with regard to the carcasses of the animals they found was clear as to their identification as wild game. Further, the court noted that the lack of production was not challenged by the defence. On ground 2, the court found that the evidence of the police officers relating to the carcasses, as well as the absence of a rebuttal by the appellants against the prima facie proof, that the court below was correct in convicting the appellants. Thus, one cannot fault the negative inference that was created by the appellants lack of rebuttal against the evidence, thereby justifying their guilt.