WILDLEX

The Honduran Curly hair tarantula is a species protected under CITES and Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on theprotection of wild fauna and flora (“the EC Regulation”). This European Court of Justice (ECJ) case concerns the interpretation of Article 8(5) of the EC Regulation.

This case involved a string of litigation concerning an application for an injunction and declaration to restrain Japanese whaling in the Australian Whale Sanctuary adjacent to Antarctica. The case was brought by conservation group, the Human Society International (HSI), against the Japanese company, Kyodo Senpaku Kaisha Ltd.

Mr. Tridon operates a centre for the artificial incubation of parrot eggs in Champagnier. He is accused in the main proceedings of having transferred for consideration captive born and bred specimens of species of macaw whose use for commercial purposes is prohibited throughout national territory by the Guyane decree.

The prosecutor indicted Mr. Nilsson for:

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.

The appellant was convicted of being in possession of rhino horns without a certificate of ownership. The appeallant appealed the conviction.