Alcock v S
2002
The Appellant had been convicted of unlawful possession of abalone without a valid permit, in contravention of regulations issued under the Marine Living Resources Act 18 of 1998. He appealed against his conviction.
Found 15 search results
Nokhanyo Khohliso v S
2014
Ms Khohliso, a traditional healer from Tsolo in the former Transkei was convicted by the Tsolo Magistrates’ Court for the possession of a pair of vulture feet in contravention of section 13(c) read with section 84(13) of the Transkei’s Decree 9 of 1992.
The defendant Qun C. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling threatened and endangered wildlife and products (appellate case)
2019
Qun C. began to domesticate and breed wild animals such as peacocks in 2010. In July 2015, using the rented land and greenhouses in Xishan District, Wuxi City, he raised poultry, domesticated peacocks and other wild animals, but did not apply for a wild animal breeding license. In May and June 2016, Qun C.
The defendants Jilong W., Yang X. and others charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling threatened and endangered wildlife and products (appellate case)
2018
In October 2016, Jilong W. sold to Xinxin C. 1 African Grey Parrot listed in Appendix I of CITES at a price of RMB 5,000. On June 5, 2017, Jilong W. was arrested by the police and failed to sell 1 African Grey Parrot, 2 Red-Shouldered Macaws, and 2 Sun Cockatoos listed in Appendix II of CITES. In October 2016, Jilong W.
The defendants Junfeng Z., Zheng, Wu, Liu charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals’ manufactured products (first instance case)
2019
On November 30 and December 31, 2017, Junfeng Z. sold ivory products to Wu at the prices of RMB 2720, 360, and 740 through contact and mailing. After identification, the above products originated from African elephant ivory. On December 15, 2017, Zheng sold four lucky buckles to Wu at a price of RMB 1,660 through WeChat contact and mailing.
The defendants Kailiang C., Wenbai H. and others charged felony counts of illegal business and illegally purchasing, transporting or selling rare and endangered wild animals and their manufactured products (first instance case)
2018
Shangping Y., Kailing C., Shancheng Y., and Hengjun W. sold their illegally hunted wild animals to Dayu Supermarket operated by Kailiang C. and Sujing X., and they made a profit of RMB 35,000, RMB 3,500, RMB 3,000, and RMB 4,000 respectively. On November 30, 2016, the Lianyungang Public Security Bureau seized a mandarin duck at the Kailiang C.
The defendants Yuan C. and Tao D. charged felony counts of illegally purchasing, transporting and selling threatened and endangered wildlife and products (appellate case)
2019
From August to October 2017, Yuan C. posted the sale information of the gold python that he incubated on the "Crawling World" website. During the period, 4 gold pythons were sold. Subsequently, the police seized 30 pythons from his house.
The defendant Wei W. charged felony counts of illegal hunting and killing of endangered wildlife and illegal hunting (appellate case)
2017
On the evening of August 14, 2014, Wei W. and Jie W. illegally hunted a goshawk with a slingshot in Tuanbu Village, Daxu Town, Tongshan District, Xuzhou City. From July 2014 to December 2015, Wei W., alone or with Wang Jinpeng and Xu Lei, hunted birds illegally with slingshots near Tuanbu Village, Daxu Town, Tongshan District, Xuzhou City.
The State v Roberts & 4 Others
2012
The accused were charged with various counts in terms of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act (“POCA”). The court was presented with evidence which led to the accused’s’ arrest. During the trial, it became apparent that there was an informer who was working for the Scorpions and was gathering information of the crime syndicate.
Roberts & Others v The State
2015
The court considered an appeal against the sentenced imposed on the appellants on the basis that they are shockingly inappropriate and out of kilter with other cases and that the court below didn’t take into account their personal circumstances.