WILDLEX

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 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.

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).

The respondent was charged with hunting huntable game and unlawful transportation of game meat without a permit. At the close of the State’s case, the magistrate, in accordance with section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Act, 51 of 1977, discharged the respondent.

Appellants had been convicted for unlawful hunting upon a plea of guilty before a Subordinate Court. They had hunted 19 springbok and 1 gemsbok without a licence. All pleaded guilty, were convicted and were sentenced to pay fines of varying amounts.

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.