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 court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed.

The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court.

Appellants had been convicted for unlawful hunting upon a plea of guilty before a Subordinate Court. They had hunted 19 springbok and 1 gemsbok without a licence. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and were sentenced to pay fines of varying amounts.

The appellants were represented in the Subordinate Court by an attorney, and according to the record, upon the charge being put to them they and their co-accused all pleaded guilty.