WILDLEX

The accused pleaded guilty and were convicted for unlawfully hunting 2 rhino’s and being in possession of rhino horns. The court below considered the seriousness of the crime and the number of rhino’s killed per year and the impact that poaching has on the economy and imposed a sentence of 6 years imprisonment and a N$60 000.00 fine.

The accused entered onto the complainant’s farm in order to hunt an oryx and was charged with the offence of unlawful hunting of huntable game, and trespassing. The accused pleaded guilty to both counts and were accordingly convicted. The question arose whether there was a duplication of convictions when the court convicted on both counts.

After being convicted of unlawfully hunting huntable game, 5 oryx, without a permit, the accused took the matter on review. At trial, accused no. 1 alleged that he did not point out or admit anything, that he did not lead the police to any scene, and that he was handcuffed and beaten. Accused no. 3 denied pointing out anything altogether.

The appellants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Court. The grounds for the appeal were that the admissions made to Mr Kao of the Ministry of Wildlife and Conservation were inadmissible for not being made freely and voluntarily, with which the High Court agreed.

The two accused were convicted of various offences in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 ranging from illegal hunting of huntable protected and specially protected game (tortoise and oryx) to possession of the said game or their meat. The accused pleaded guilty to certain offences and not guilty to others.

Offence is alleged to have occurred on 7 September 2009 at or near Mahango Game Park (in the district of Rundu). The accused wrongfully and unlawfully hunted 3 kudus without a special permit. He was wrongly sentenced to a fine of N$3000 Namibian dollars or in default of payment 20 months’ imprisonment.

The appellant was caught dealing illegally in ivory and charged with contravening section 2(1)(a) of the AG Proclamation 42 of 1980 – the controlled Games Products Proclamation. As a result, he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment and 18 months of the sentence was suspended.

Accused were caught skinning an oryx and being in possession of oryx meat. The accused were charged with hunting oryx (protected game) without a special permit. The accused were convicted of having contravened section 26(1) of Ordinance 4 of 1975 (hunting of specially protected game).

In the lower court, accused 1 and 2 were convicted of count 1, contravening sections 1,30(1)(b), (30)(1)(c), 85, 89 A of the Nature Conservation Ordinance 4 of 1975 as amended read with ss 90 and 250 of Act 51 of 1977. Accused 5 was convicted of the first alternative to count 1 – Possession of game meat contravening s 51 of Ordinance 4 of 1975.

This is an appeal case where the court looked into the procedure taken to try the matter at the lower court. The judges questioned whether the convictions in the trial court were duplicated.