WILDLEX

The court held that the appellants were protecting the lives of the cubs and as well as their legal interest in the survical of the cubs as the owners of the very expensive animals.

This is an appeal by the appellant against his conviction and sentence by the Regional Court magistrate, Upington, on charges of contravention of sections 44(1)(b)(i) and 46 of the Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance 19 of 1974.

The court held that in this matter, it was common cause that a South African Court had jurisdiction to decide ownership of the Sable based on the cession agreement. The court found that the cession agreement had been signed by the attorney, acting under the authority of the first respondent.

The court considered an appeal on the basis that the magistrate erred in denying the accused bail and that the magistrate erred in finding that the accused may abscond and fail to attend trial due to his ability to enter and leave the Republic without going through a border.

The Director-General, Department Of Environmental Affairs (2nd Respondent) invited the public to make written submissions on proposed lion export quota in line with CITES requirements.

The second respondent (“the Minister”) had announced the complete suspension of the commercial fishing of wild abalone in accordance with section 16 of the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. The applicants were rights holders in the industry. They lodged protests against the suspension.

In a judgment handed down in the sentencing of Mr Blignault, the Court considered the evidence placed before it during his trial, its weight, and the personal circumstances of the accused.

This case involves a company (HBFI) that was involved in harvesting fish in excess of its quotas and buying illegally harvested fish from other catchers which violated inter alia the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998 (‘the Marine Act’).

The appellant was stopped by the police, as he drove away from the scene and was brought back to the scene. He was found in possession of keys to specific Units and cell phones. The Manageress testified that Unit 12 was leased by the appellant.

The accused were previously convicted on various counts, by the same court and the matter came for sentencing on a later date. The Criminal Law Amendment Act 105 of 1977, prescribes a discretionary minimum sentence of 15 years imprisonment per count for amounts of more than R500 000; for the ten counts on theft of rhino horns.