WILDLEX

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 US Navy was using mid-frequency active (MFA) sonar during its training exercises off the coast of southern California.

Since 1987, United States regulations have required that shrimp trawlers generally install turtle excluder devices (TEDs) when operating in U.S. waters where sea turtles are located (Section 609 of Public Law 101-162). A group of countries brought a complaint to the Dispute Settle Mechanism of the WTO.

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 appellant was convicted in the Magistrate’s Court on two accounts of contravening the Firearms Act and one count of contravening the National Parks and Wildlife Act, Cap. 316. The appellant appeared before the Supreme Court to apply for the return of his firearm which was ordered to be forfeited.

This is an appeal case were the accused was aqutted and the convictions on the three counts of Unlawful Possession of Prescribed Trophy without a certificate of ownership were set aside for lack of proper evidence provided to the court.

The appellants, all first offenders, were charged with hunting elephant and rhinoceros. They were charged on the 31 October 1986 for selling two pairs of rhinoceros horns without permit. They were convicted on prohibited dealing in trophies and sentenced to three years imprisonment based on the section they were charged under.

The applicant appealed the matter in the Supreme Court of Zambia challenging the order by the Surbodinate Court for forfeiture on the grounds that Phiri was not the owner of the firearm, and that for such order to be made where the property involved belonged not to the person convicted but to an innocent third party, it must be shown that the th

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.