WILDLEX

This was a review case where the judges looked into the sentences that had been given by the magistrate at the lower court for 2 accused persons who were found to be unlawfully in possesson of game meat.

The appellants brought an appeal against the sentences handed down to them by the Magistrate, for being in possession of a live pangolin in contravention of teh Controlled Wildlife Act. The sentence imposed was 24 months imprisonment of which 12 months were suspended for 5 years on appropriate conditions.

The two accused men were charged for contravening section 27(1) read with subsections 1, 27(2), 85, 87 and 89 (A) of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended further read with subsections 90 and 250 of 51 of 1977.

This was a case of review where the judge questioned whether a proper sentence was imposed for accused 1 for count 1.

The Magistrate Court commenced trial without the accused persons having pleaded to the charges. The Magistrate referred the matter for special review before sentencing of the accused persons. Court found that it had jurisdiction in terms of section 20(1)(c) of the High Court Act 16 of 1990 to review the proceedings of a Magistrate’s Court.

The court considered a review of the court below’s finding relating to the accused’s charge. The accused was charged and convicted of contravening s 30 (1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 for unlawfully hunting huntable game. The accused was found in possession of a shotgun, which he had used in the commission of the offence.

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.

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.

The appellant in this matter was found in possession of raw Ivory and sentenced. Which it seems, he claimed he was not involved with. He was charged with contravening section 2(1)(a), read with s. 1 of Proclamation AG 42 of 1980 (as amended). And found guilty.

The second Accused person found the carcass of a kudu near the road as he took his employers herd of cattle to a water point.