WILDLEX

The appellant was charged with hunting of specially protected game and arrested. They applied for bail and the magistrate declined the application until the investigations were finalised. The court mero motu raised the issue whether the matter was appealable given the apparent hybrid nature of the order given.

An appeal against the judgement of a Magistrate Court against the accused for excessive conviction for unlawful hunting of rhinos and insufficient evidence to sustain conviction. The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit and the decision of the Magistrate Court affirmed.

This is an appeal against conviction which came before this High Court on 2 December 2008. On count 1, the court reasoned that Section 109 is a criminal provision, thus s 109 is concerned with a threat of physical injury to a public servant.

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 applicant filed an application on review seeking an order that would set aside the acquittal of the respondent. This court then focused on the interpretation of the phrase ’irregularity in the proceedings’. The court referred to several precedents that had stated that a mistake in law was not per se an irregularity.

Accused was convicted of unlawfully hunting without a licence contrary to section 15 (1) of Cap. 38:01 Fauna Conservation. His defence was that he was under the impression that he was entitled to hunt and kill on the licences of other members of the party.

The accused were charged with hunting in a game reserve, in contravention of the Fauna Conservation Proclamation, 1961; alternatively, that they were hunting without a licence or permit. In their defence, the accused argued that they did not know they were hunting in a game reserve, and that they had the licences necessary to hunt the zebra.

The accused was arraigned before the Principal Magistrate of Gaborone on a summons charging him with being found in possession of ivories without certificate of ownership.

The 6 appellants were convicted, in a magistate court, of unlawful possession of and dealing in elephant ivory and skin and leopard skin in contravention of the Wildlife and National Parks 28 of 1992.

The appellants in the court below were found to be in possession of game animal, alternatively government trophy, namely wildebeest skin, without being licenced or authorised to possess same.