WILDLEX

For the State’s case, Detective Steyn from the South African Police testified that he had started out an investigation after having seen a truck and trailer with ostriches that was driven by an employee of accused no.1.

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 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.