Blagdon v HMTQ
William Blagdon appealed a conviction and the sentence he received in the Provincial Court for breaching section 91(3)(a) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, contrary to section 78(a) of the Fisheries Act.
Database of Wildlife Related Law
William Blagdon appealed a conviction and the sentence he received in the Provincial Court for breaching section 91(3)(a) of the Atlantic Fishery Regulations, contrary to section 78(a) of the Fisheries Act.
The applicant sought bail pleading exceptional circumstances: his severe medical condition; he was elderly (51 years) and that he was a first-time offender.
This is an appeal case based on arguments that the sentence of imprisonment is excessive when the magistrate could have imposed a fine and that the order for forfeiture was wrong.
The court held that, the fine imposed was the maximum according to section 110 (b) of the Act which provides for penalties. The court held that, there is no explanation why the magistrate imposed the maximum fine for an accused who pleaded guilty and was a first offender.
This was an appeal on the decision of the Chief Magistrate that found the appellant guilty of possession of four pieces of raw ivory and two hippo teeth without a permit or licence.