WILDLEX

In 1995 a wildlife officer received information that the appellants have been engaged in illegally trafficking in white-tailed deer, deer and elk antlers, and moose. As a result of the resulting investigation the appellants were charged with a variety of offences contrary to The Wildlife Act, S.S.

This case is an appeal of convictions and sentences on several charges of trafficking in, and possession of, white tailed deer, elk meat, white-tailed deer antlers, elk antlers, and hunting white-tailed deer without a licence, all contrary to the Wildlife Act.
Judgement:

The accused has plead guilty to one count of selling walleye contrary to the Alberta Fishery Regulations thereby contravening section 78 of the Canada Fisheries Act. Undercover operations had established Mr.

Mr. Sawicki plead guilty under The Wildlife Act, 1998, for trafficking in wildlife and possession of wildlife for the purpose of trafficking, contrary to s.44(a) and s.44(b). He was sentenced to 15 months to be served in the community (a conditional sentence).

The defendant plead guilty to charges pertaining to unlawful trafficking and possession of wildlife, or parts thereof, violating regulations of the Wildlife Act of British Columbia, in particular with reference to the wings and feathers of bald eagles.

This is a case of appeal. The respondent was accused on three charges listed above. The question was, whether the permits the respondent (at that time: the accused) carried were technically valid for the actions he committed.

On 6 of November 2005, Kenya Wildlife Service Rangers found 2 men, the current appellants, slaughtering a buffalo within the Ragati forest. Arresting them, they recovered a spear, 2 pangas, a snare and 2 bags. The appellants were charged with the aforesaid offences.

The accused was charged with two breaches of the Fisheries Act, namely, possession of several undersized lobster, and possession of a v-notched lobster (see Commentary and Significant Features).

The five appellants have been charged on the aforesaid Count Nos. 2 and 4. The Court, to which the appeals have been made, noted "certain glaring anomalies" with the court of first instance's verdict.

This case is an application for bail pending appeal.