WILDLEX

These appeals from convictions for conspiracy to import raw African elephant ivory in violation of the African Elephant Conservation Act ("AECA"), 16 U.S.C. § 4223(1), violations of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. § 1538(c)(1), and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.

All three appellants have appealed against their convictions. There is no appeal against the sentences, because of the mandatory provisions of the legislation in casu. The representative of the Crown conceded Accused No. 5's appeal, due to the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence against him, specifically. Since Accused No.

On November 3 1987, the People's Procuratorate of Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province instituted a public prosecution in the Intermediate People's Court of Guangzhou City against the defendants, Chen Yonglin and Chen Zupei, on charges of smuggling of giant panda pelt.

The appellant pleaded guilty to being knowingly concerned in fraudulently evading the prohibition on the importation of a prohibited species of endangered falcon. He was stopped while entering the country with his car, which was found to contain four young birds of prey, Gyr falcons, worth between GBP 10,000 - 15,000 each.

The appellant was convicted of one count of keeping and offering for sale a peregrine falcon and six counts of selling such birds, contrary to the Control of Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement)Regulations 1985.

The appellants pleaded guilty to conspiring to sell restricted specimens, rhinoceros horn, contrary to the control of the Trade in Endangered Species (Enforcement) Regulations 1985.

The defendant was a breeder of rare parrots. He was charged in an indictment with four counts of being knowingly concerned in the fraudulent evasion of a restriction, by virtue of an enactment, on the importation of goods, contrary to section 170(2)(b) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.

The petitioners are dealers and artisans in ivory who carry on the business and trade in ivory including the manufacture of articles derived from ivory lawfully imported into India prior to the ban. They imported part of the stock of mammoth ivory from Russia and part of it from Hong Kong for the purposes of the business.

This appeal concerns the fate of four chimpanzees, brought from Zaire (in today's Democratic Republic of the Congo) by the Respondent. The animals are still in custody of the Uganda authorities, having been seized at Entebbe Airport as they were about to be exported to Dubai.

As a result of an earlier ruling, namely reversing the verdict of acquittal of the District Judge and recording a conviction against both respondents, it is now the task of the Court of Appeal ("the Court") to impose such sentence as is proper in the circumstances.