WILDLEX

Since 1987, United States regulations have required that shrimp trawlers generally install turtle excluder devices (TEDs) when operating in U.S. waters where sea turtles are located (Section 609 of Public Law 101-162). A group of countries brought a complaint to the Dispute Settle Mechanism of the WTO.

The defendant is the owner of the Marshall 201, a vessel spotted by a U.S. Coast Guard within the U.S. EEZ surrounding Baker and Howland Islands. The vessel had no permission to fish in the zone. Nevertheless, the vessel carried 130 tons of tuna presumably harvested from U.S. waters.

The plaintiff is American Pelagic, a company whose President and sole shareholder, purchased a large boat, the Atlantic Star, in 1996 to transform it into a massive fishing vessel. In 1997, NMFS issued both a valid Atlantic mackerel permit and a Northeast Multispecies fish permit to the vessel.

The facts are that the the appellant owned a safari lodge on a piece of land within a nature reserve. His main tourist attraction was the wildlife on the nature reserve. However poaching on the reserve had led to the reduction in wildlife sightings and therefore lower volumes of business.

The accused pleaded guilty and were convicted for unlawfully hunting 2 rhino’s and being in possession of rhino horns. The court below considered the seriousness of the crime and the number of rhino’s killed per year and the impact that poaching has on the economy and imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a N$60 000.00 fine.

The accused entered onto the complainant’s farm in order to hunt an oryx and was charged with the offence of unlawful hunting of huntable game, and trespassing. The accused pleaded guilty to both counts and were accordingly convicted. The question arose whether there was a duplication of convictions when the court convicted on both counts.

After being convicted of unlawfully hunting huntable game, 5 oryx, without a permit, the accused took the matter on review. At trial, accused no. 1 alleged that he did not point out or admit anything, that he did not lead the police to any scene, and that he was handcuffed and beaten. Accused no. 3 denied pointing out anything altogether.

The appellants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court. The grounds for the appeal were that the admissions made to Mr Kao of the Ministry of Wildlife and Conservation were inadmissible for not being made freely and voluntarily, with which the High Court agreed.

The two accused were convicted of various offences in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 ranging from illegal hunting of huntable protected and specially protected game (tortoise and oryx) to possession of the said game or their meat. The accused pleaded guilty to certain offences and not guilty to others.

Offence is alleged to have occurred on 7 September 2009 at or near Mahango Game Park (in the district of Rundu). The accused wrongfully and unlawfully hunted 3 kudus without a special permit. He was wrongly sentenced to a fine of N$3000 Namibian dollars or in default of payment 20 months’ imprisonment.