WILDLEX

The appellants were represented in the Subordinate Court by an attorney, and according to the record, upon the charge being put to them they and their co-accused all pleaded guilty.

The court held that if it is established that the appellant hunted and killed the animals in the game reserve, the burden shifts to the appellant to establish that he did not know that he was in the game reserve. The appellant thus has to establish on a balance of probabilities that he killed the animals on another piece of land.

The accused were charged and convicted of contravening section 15 (1) of the Fauna Conservation Act. The first appellant killed three kudus whereas his licence only permitted him to hunt for two springboks.