WILDLEX

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.

The court had to settle point in laws which were in dispute in this case. On a charge of unlawfully hunting in a Game Reserve it was contended by the Defence that Statutory Instrument No.

The court held that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that it is the duty of the trial judicial officer to warn himself of the danger of convicting on the evidence of accomplice witnesses. The court held that the magistrate had failed to make a record of such warning.

The appellant was found guilty of hunting and killing one elephant without a licence and it was against that conviction that he filed the appeal in the High Court. The appellant had been convicted but the charge was defective in that it failed to disclose an offence.

This was an appeal against the rejection of a recusal application by a magistrate who was also charged with the administration or permits and licences under the Fauna Proclamation.

The court held that as an observer PW1 (a game scout) could only testify to the fact that the demarcated lines were ”cut” but not to whether they conformed with the Statutiry instrument. Thus PW1’s evidence is that of hearsay and inadmissible.

This is an appeal against the conviction and sentence of a fine of P100 passed by the Chief Magistrate at Francistown on 8th April, 1982 on a charge of failing to report a Government trophy contrary to section 82 (1) as read with section 82 (2) of the Fauna Conservation Act Cap 38:01 as amended by Act No. I of 1979.

The appellant was convicted by a magistrate of the offence of unlawful possession of government trophy contrary to section 82 (1) and (2) (b) of the Fauna Conservation Act (Cap. 38:01) (1973 Rev.).

The accused were charged with contravening Regulation 5 (1) of the Fauna Conservation (Batawana Tribal Territory) (Hunting) Regulations, 1967, contained in Statutory Instrument No. 65 of 1967. They killed two buffalo without being in possession of a permit allowing them to do so.

The court held that if it is established that the appellant hunted and killed the animals in the game reserve, the burden shifts to the appellant to establish that he did not know that he was in the game reserve. The appellant thus has to establish on a balance of probabilities that he killed the animals on another piece of land.