WILDLEX

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 Driftnet Act establishes a process under which the United States may take various actions against a foreign nation whose fishing vessels on the high seas engage in large-scale driftnet fishing. Italian fishing vessels were using these nets. Subsequent negotiations between Italy and the President of the U.S.

In addition to banning large-scale pelagic driftnets by U.S. vessels and nationals, the Driftnet Act established a mechanism to deter the use of driftnets by foreign vessels in international waters. Under this mechanism, the U.S.

A fisheries officer noticed that the defendant (Yates) had scores of undersized red grouper on board. This was a violation of federal conservation regulations, which prohibited fishermen from retaining grouper under a certain length.

The defendant is the owner of the Marshall 201, a vessel spotted by a U.S. Coast Guard within the U.S. EEZ surrounding Baker and Howland Islands. The vessel had no permission to fish in the zone. Nevertheless, the vessel carried 130 tons of tuna presumably harvested from U.S. waters.

The plaintiff is American Pelagic, a company whose President and sole shareholder, purchased a large boat, the Atlantic Star, in 1996 to transform it into a massive fishing vessel. In 1997, NMFS issued both a valid Atlantic mackerel permit and a Northeast Multispecies fish permit to the vessel.

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 accused, in this automatic review matter, was tried in the Grootfontein Magistrate’s Court, on one count of hunting specially protected game, (namely: a giraffe, valued at N$9000-00) in contravention of section 26(1) of Ordinance 40 of 1975. He was convicted as charged and sentenced to five years direct imprisonment.

The appellant was convicted by the magistrate court with four men of illegal hunting and killing of a conserved animal, giraffe (without a license or permit) contrary to the Fauna Conservation Proclamation. The appellant himself did not kill the animal but instructed the other four men to kill the animal.