WILDLEX

Since 2017, without obtaining a business license, Zimao L. had repeatedly sold rhino horn products and ivory products to WeChat friends through WeChat.

On July 18, 2014, Shidong Y. stored three boxes of ivory and ivory products in Cai's place. The next day, Shiliang Y. knew that the goods were ivory and ivory products, and still rented a small car driven by Pan to transport the goods from Ningde City, Fujian Province to Shanghai, and Shiliang Y. accompanied him.

Yanxu D. opened Jumingyuan Jewellery Store at the International Jewellery Trading Center in Yaotou Road, Lixia District, Jinan City in 2014. During the operation of the jewellery store, Yanxu D.

On October 4, 2017, Jun L. returned from Kenya by KQ886 flight and entered through the Guangzhou Baiyun Airport port. He concealed the disguised four small pieces of rhino horn slices in the black wooden head, and placed it in the suitcase for consignment. From October 8 to October 16, 2017, Jun L. contacted Hongsen W.

At noon on March 1, 2014, Shijiang S. drove his black Mercedes-Benz sedan to transport an ivory returning to Langfang City, Hebei Province. He was seized while passing through the Lujijie Rongwu Expressway Public Security Checkpoint of Binzhou Public Security Bureau.

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.

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.

The plaintiff who was arrested for theft of 2 zebra skins, spent 32 days in custody awaiting trial. His case was later withdrawn. He then claimed N$277 200.00 from the defendant for wrongfully and maliciously setting the law in motion by laying a false charge against him.

The accussed was fined a sum of K5000 or 9 months’ simple imprisonment in default of the fine. To review this matter, the court referred to ss 337 and 338 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This court reasoned that there were two kinds of trophies involved that had been placed under one charge sheet.

The court held that the onus is always on the prosecution to prove the guilt of an accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court held that it is the duty of the trial judicial officer to warn himself of the danger of convicting on the evidence of accomplice witnesses. The court held that the magistrate had failed to make a record of such warning.