Schwarzenberg v Commonwealth of Australia
William Schwarzenberg, the plaintiff, has been a collector of exotic birds for most of his life.
Database of Wildlife Related Law
William Schwarzenberg, the plaintiff, has been a collector of exotic birds for most of his life.
A company and two of its directors were charged with offences under the Environmental Protection Act in relation to the disposal of abrasive blasting product from a ship cleaning business in Brisbane. This case study concerns an application for leave to appeal by Moore, one of the directors.
The court considered an appeal against the sentence imposed.
The two Accused had been convicted of unlawfully hunting game. The value of weapons and vehicle used in the commission of the offence exceeded the civil jurisdiction of a Subordinate Court, which accordingly referred the question of forfeiture of these articles to the High Court.
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 had to settle point in laws which were in dispute in this case. On a charge of unlawfully hunting in a Game Reserve it was contended by the Defence that Statutory Instrument No.
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.
The appellant was found guilty of hunting and killing one elephant without a licence and it was against that conviction that he filed the appeal in the High Court. The appellant had been convicted but the charge was defective in that it failed to disclose an offence.
This was an appeal against the rejection of a recusal application by a magistrate who was also charged with the administration or permits and licences under the Fauna Proclamation.