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 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.